The ‘Old Poor Laws’ gave parishes a duty, they didn’t make a single national system preferring instead to rely on the good sense, organisation and responsiveness of local people
But how does the idea of a more local, 'community-based' system fit with 1) mass migration- I might dig into my pocket to support a neighbour but not a stranger who doesn't intend to stay and 2) changes concentration of wealth. Feasibly in the 1700s-1945 the 'local rich family who owned everything in town' could be prevailed upon to provide welfare (not least because of the implicit threat of people knowing where they lived). Now the family that owns everything is as likely to live in Shanghai or Mumbai than Southampton or Macclesfield
Or that more generally those areas with more of the needy are likely to be poorer overall. So doing that locally (whilst I fully understand the sentiment) will exacerbate regional inequalities.
But how does the idea of a more local, 'community-based' system fit with 1) mass migration- I might dig into my pocket to support a neighbour but not a stranger who doesn't intend to stay and 2) changes concentration of wealth. Feasibly in the 1700s-1945 the 'local rich family who owned everything in town' could be prevailed upon to provide welfare (not least because of the implicit threat of people knowing where they lived). Now the family that owns everything is as likely to live in Shanghai or Mumbai than Southampton or Macclesfield
Or that more generally those areas with more of the needy are likely to be poorer overall. So doing that locally (whilst I fully understand the sentiment) will exacerbate regional inequalities.
Except logically under a more local system all the needy would move to Chipping Norton and Kensington. Can't imagine that going down well...
More good sense. Incidentally, my uncle was a somewhat renowned historian of the old poor laws.