Abstract
The 'nuclear hardship' hypothesis claims that where nuclear families predominated collective aid prevailed, whereas extended households were coextensive with kin-based support. This article tests this assumption by considering the relationship between households and the Poor Law in Lowland Scots communities after 1845. While cross-sectional census data are inconclusive, a longitudinal analysis based on case study evidence, including temporary as well as permanent relief patterns, suggests that 'nuclear hardship' might be replaced by a model that matches household structure with the varying sources of aid given during critical life situations while focusing upon applicants as negotiators rather than victims.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 253-280 |
Number of pages | 27 |
Journal | Continuity and Change |
Volume | 17 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Aug 2002 |