La suspensión de lanzamiento en las ejecuciones hipotecarias

Among the earliest state interventions in the welfare of citizens and provision of social services were policies involving food. In the UK, concern for the health and nutritional condition of the population and its ability to defend national interests at home and in international conflicts led to policies such as the Education (Provision of School Meals) Act 1906. This allowed (but did not compel) local authorities to provide school meals to

‘necessitous’ children. According to Burnett (1994: 55), interventions of this sort received particularly strong ideological opposition at the time: “feeding was regarded by many as in a different category from housing, clothing or educating: it was the most fundamental responsibility of parenthood”. Such state intervention was considered a threat to the family, weakening the basic unit of society. Given the level of opposition it received, Burnett (1994) suggests that this early school meals policy should be recognised as being far more significant in the development of the British welfare state than its limited provision

suggests. Elsewhere school meals were also an early feature of state intervention in

citizens’ welfare. Finland, for example, while generally recognised as a laggard in terms of its development as a Nordic welfare state, was the first country in the world to introduce universal free school meals in 1948 (Finnish National Board of Education, 2008).

While food has not been considered a central ‘pillar’ of the welfare state and today is rarely identified explicitly as a priority for welfare policy, food interventions were significant features of the social reconstruction plans in Western Europe following the Second World War. According to Burnett and Oddly (1994: 5), this period of post-war consensus:

“assumed universal provision by governments of welfare foods or dietary supplements, statutory fortification of some foods thought important in the diet of poorer sectors of the population, and state provision of subsidised meals”.

However, despite this apparent early emphasis on state intervention in food, it is housing, social security, health and education which constitute the four pillars of the welfare state, and examination of the different ways in which these pillars are organised has formed, to varying degrees, the focus of much comparative welfare research.

Kemeny (2001) considers that of the four pillars, housing, which is rarely universally publically provided, occupies an ambiguous position within the welfare state. Kemeny’s thesis on this ambiguity is particularly useful for analysing the place of food within the welfare state. This is because the challenge for such analysis might be seen as similar to that which Kemeny identifies in his discussion of the role of housing, which he argues has a: “high degree of ‘embeddedness’ in social structure” (Kemeny 2001: 56). Clear parallels with food might also be drawn when he suggests of housing that: “its pervasiveness in terms of influence on life styles, urban form, welfare and patterns of human consumption make it at the same time central to understanding welfare yet conceptually elusive” (2001:

56). Reflection on the ‘embeddedness’ and ‘pervasiveness’ of food, yet also its

‘elusiveness’ in understanding the welfare state is important in an attempt to bring more clarity to the role of food in comparative welfare state analysis.

As discussed in Chapter Two, analysis of food and nutrition has always played a central role in poverty research and building the evidence base for policy interventions. Yet as Lang et al. (2009) highlight, the question remains as to whether food requires specific welfare responses beyond those of wider social and economic policies. For them, it is important to recognise the connection between the two. Table 4.1 is their adaptation of Gordon’s (2003) summary of the connection between the overall objectives of anti-poverty policy and the aims of food policy across Europe, and how these have changed over the past four centuries.

Table 4.1 Aims of European anti-poverty policies and food policy for the poor, 17^th to 21^st centuries

Century Purpose of anti-poverty policy

Food Policy for Poor

17^th and 18^th Relief of indigence Prevent starvation but setting minimalist standards.

19^th and early 20^th

Relief of destitution Economic production/physical efficiency.

Prevent idleness.

20^th Alleviation of poverty Nutritious diet for subsistence. Prevent hunger.

21^st Eradication of poverty Inclusive diet. Prevent exclusion.

Source: Lang et al 2009: 263, adapted from Gordon (2003)

The table highlights how priorities of food interventions have evolved in line with changing approaches to poverty, suggesting a progressive trajectory from interest in relieving only the most extreme end of poverty and hunger, to an inclusive, preventative approach. As Pratalla et al. (2002) also point out, early, highly selective, philanthropic attitudes to food for relief from extreme hunger changed in the early 20^th Century as governments became more concerned with the fitness of their industrial and military workforce. Following the Second World War, welfare state models founded on

universalistic principles began to develop across European nations, and food interventions were associated with such welfare programmes. The universal provision of free meals to all school pupils introduced in Finland in 1948 is an example of this.

However, unlike Lang et al. (2009) who suggest the priority of the 21^st Century has been an ‘inclusive’ approach to food – tied to the aim of eradicating poverty, Pratalla et al.

(2002) emphasise the shift to a more selective model since the 1970s, with many national governments cutting high-cost universal interventions. Such changes in approach to food interventions were reflective of wider changes in the welfare state. Notably in the UK Margaret Thatcher’s role in abolishing free school milk while Secretary for Education in 1971 was an early and iconic example of the welfare state reforms of her later career.

Commenting on the ideological shift regarding the nature and purpose of the welfare state which occurred in the late 1970s, Burnett and Oddly (1994: 5) highlight:

“the citing of choice became a new rationale which enabled governments to limit high-cost universal services to selectively targeted groups, to introduce optional provisions and to begin considering ways of dismantling their welfare states”.

This historical perspective is a helpful starting point for more detailed comparative analysis of the role of food across different welfare state types and summarising the objectives of food interventions by the state in different contexts. A more nuanced analysis of different welfare regime types and how their approaches to food and poverty have changed over time is attempted below.