| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,500,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥1,800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,800,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The aim of this project was to examine the relationship between mutualism and state welfare in modern Britain.
The following three points were made clear.
1)Modern Britain had a thick layer of voluntary associations. The association of mutualism, such as friendly society, trade union, and cooperative society, played a crucial role for providing welfare for the working-classes. Yet, these associations fell into a ‘crisis', in membership and finance, in the late-nineteenth century. Those societies of self-help had to ask for any help from outside.
2)The state gave the assistance. But the societies hesitated to accept it, because, if so, their cardinal principle might be damaged. They thought it would bring them an identity crisis. But in the course of debates, they finally decided to accept the state assistance, on the grounds that the state is ourselves'. They perceived the state as a large mutual help society, rather than an ‘enemy' or the ‘other'.
3)The state welfares, such as the Old Age Pensions and the National Insurance Act, were introduced in the early twentieth century. The association of mutualism cooperated with the state in administrating the measures as ‘approved society'. It was also beneficial to the state. For the devolution of the power to the intermediate bodies was the best means for ‘cheap government'. In the process, the association recovered in terms of membership, but their character changed.. Their financial and administrative burdens increased heavily ; they became a kind of administrative organization. They tended to lose independence, and voluntary spirit. It would arise a new identity crisis, which was eventually resolved by the more centralized ‘elfare state' in the mid-twentieth century.
In brief, Individuals could get a minimal safety net through the multiple network of mutualism in Britain. Yet, the form of mutualism itself considerably changed.
|
