It is well known that the Dutch were already known as a generous people in the Golden Age. But where did that generosity come from? Recent research shows that pressure from both the city council and the pastor played an important role in this. So not just out of the goodness of the Dutch hearts…
Historian Daniëlle Teeuwen recently published a dissertation on poor relief during the Republic (1588-1795). Because Teeuwen had already lifted a corner of the veil in a column for Kennislink, we would like to know what emerges from her research.
The generosity of the early modern Dutch had earned them the reputation of being the most generous of the time, according to your column. Was this reputation justified?
“Yes, probably, along with the English. Compared to poor relief in other European countries, the Republic and England together scored the highest. In these countries, between two and three percent of the gross national product went to poor relief. By today's standards, that is little to spend on social care, but at the time that was a high percentage."
What was the difference between aid to the poor in the Republic and England?
“In England, a relatively strong central government imposed national poor laws from the sixteenth century onwards. From then on, the English paid tax on a percentage of their property and from this the poor relief was largely paid for. In the Republic, political power was fragmented, as a result of which the organization of poor relief differed per city. The various poor relief institutions that existed financed a large part of their care from collection gifts. Although these were voluntary donations, they turned out to provide a stable income for the institutions.”
How is it possible that early modern Dutch gave voluntarily as much as the English, for whom donation was obligatory?
“The urban and religious authorities used effective methods to get the population to give generously. The research found that their fundraising strategies sought to raise public awareness about the need among the poor, build confidence that donations would be well spent, and exert pressure to give. City officials and pastors reminded the townspeople of their Christian duty to give money to the poor. They would also be rewarded for this in the afterlife."
“There was not only collection in the church, but also door to door, which increased the visibility and brand awareness of institutions within the city. Collectors came by with an open bowl and the social pressure to give was great. In the poor busses scattered throughout the city, where there was no such pressure, anonymous passers-by put much less money.”
Not only the rich gave generously, the research shows. But what was the poor care to do with the handful of small change from the poorer neighbourhoods?
“Poverty relief was the responsibility of all citizens, not just the rich. That is why house-to-house collections were also carried out in poor neighbourhoods. The collected small coins were again easy to distribute to the needy. Even in cities where collecting was not a pure necessity, people went door-to-door. There were various institutions in Den Bosch that had already been established in the Middle Ages and – just like then – could pay for poor relief from the interest on their capital. The fact that some institutions did collect here was probably partly due to the fact that this could increase social cohesion in the city.”
No help for sloths
At the end of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, many new poor relief institutions opened their doors. Due to the Reformation, the aid organized by the Catholic Church largely disappeared, which was partly absorbed by Protestant deaconies. City councils also increasingly set up health care institutions. Moreover, during this period, prosperity increased sharply, but with it social inequality. Many people worked as day laborers and their income was not stable.
In tighter times, they were supported by poor relief. These new institutions had built up little property to earn interest from and they had to pay for care from collected funds. Proper care for the poor was not only a matter of charity but also serious business. It was supposed to prevent social unrest among the poor and it was good for a city's reputation.
In the eighteenth century, the Republic was doing a lot less economically. Although the proceeds of the collections did not decrease, the health care institutions needed more money because of the increasing number of poor. Solutions were sought in generating capital, such as investing in bonds. Subsidies from the city council were a welcome source of income. In addition, healthcare institutions started to monitor their expenditure more closely.
Everyone was no longer welcome. It became increasingly difficult for migrants to claim care and the institutions no longer tolerated Catholics and other dissident religious groups:they had to ask for help from their own co-religionists.
At the end of the century there was a commotion about the system of poor relief. Teeuwen:“During this period, the idea arises that poor relief would be too generous and would create a group of lazy people who lived only on aid. However, this was impossible. The assistance was minimal and therefore not sufficient to live on. A number of stuivers per week and possibly supplemented with bread, clothing and peat in the winter. Most therefore had work on the side or had to fall back on their social network.”
Despite the changing outlook on poor relief and declining prosperity, the strategies behind the collections continued to work in the eighteenth century. And the Dutch generous.