Full text of Family Allowances in Various Countries : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 754

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR
Frances Perkins, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave)
A . F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner

♦

Family Allowances in Various
Countries
By
M A R Y T. WAGGAMAN
Bureau o f Labor Statistics

Bulletin T'fo. 754

[Reprinted from the M onthly Labor R eview , August 1943,
w ith additional data]




Letter o f Transmittal
U

n it e d

States D epartm en t of L a b o r ,
B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s ,

Washington, D. CNovem ber 17, 1943.
The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on family allowances
in various countries. It is only in recent years that there has been any
widespread discussion of this subject in the United States, but long
before the present war, systems of family allowances had been in
operation in some foreign countries. This bulletin gives the latest
available information on family allowances, other than those for
armed forces, in the various countries.
This report was prepared by Mary T. Waggaman, under the super­
vision of Hugh S. Hanna, chief of the Bureau’s Editorial and Research
Division.
A. F . H i n r i c h s ,
Acting Commissioner.
Hon. F r a n c e s P e r k i n s ,
Secretary oj Labor.




CONTENTS
P a ge

Types of family-allowance systems____________________________________
Methods of paying family allowances__________________________________
Family-allowance funds______________________________________________
Developments, 1939-43_____________________________________________
Family allowances in private employment-------------------------------------------Scope of family-allowance plans__________________________________
Dependent beneficiaries and allowance rates---------------------------------Financial contributions and equalization funds------------------------------Family allowances in public employment______________________________
Family endowment by the State_____________________________________
Development of family allowances in individual countries:
Argentina______________________________________________________
Australia____________________________ __________________________
Belgium______________________________________________ ^________
Bohemia-Moravia______________________________________________
Brazil_________________________________________________________
Bulgaria_______________________________________________________
Canada________________________________________________________
Chile__________________________________________________________
Czechoslovakia_________________________________________________
Finland________________________________________________________
France_________________________________________________________
French Equatorial Africa________________________________________
Germany----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Great Britain__________________________________________________
Hungary_______________________________________________________
Italy--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------Japan_________________________________________________________
Latvia---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Lebanon----------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------Monaco________________________________________________________
Netherlands____________________________________________________
New Zealand___________________________________________________
Nicaragua___________________________________________________ _
Norway________________________________________________________
Palestine_______ _______________________________________________
Peru_____________________________ _____________________________
Poland_________________________________________________________
Portugal__________________________________________________ _•____
Rumania_______________________________________________________
Soviet Union___________________________________________________
Spain---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sweden________________________________________________________
Switzerland____________________________________________________
Turkey________________________________________________________
Union of South Africa___________________________________________
United States----------------------------------------------------------------------------Uruguay_______________________________________________________
Yugoslavia (Croatia)____________________________________________
in




2
2
2
3
4
4
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
17
19
20
20
21
25
25
27
32
34
37
37
38
38
38
39
40
40
41
42
42
43
45
45
45
47
47
48
48
48
62
62




Bulletin T^o. 754 of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M on th ly Labor Review, August 1943, with additional data]

Family Allowances in Various Countries
IN PRACTICALLY all industrialized countries serious consideration
has been given for a number of years to the problem of adequately
providing for large families in the case of wage earners and lowersalaried employees. It is now generally agreed that the remuneration
of such workers should be sufficient to provide for the maintenance of
a family at a minimum standard of health and decency. However,
an income which will provide such a standard for a married man with
a small family may well be insufficient in the case of a large number of
dependents.
It is only in recent years that there has been any widespread dis­
cussion of this problem in the United States, but in various foreign
countries concrete proposals for meeting it have been made in re­
sponsible quarters and in a considerable number such proposals have
been put into practice.
In France and Belgium, for instance, long before the present war
there was in effect an extensive system of “ family allowances” by
which extra payments to wage earners with dependents were made
from a “ pool” supported by the employers in a particular group. In
New Zealand and Australia a different approach was taken, payments
to families with more than a specified number of children being made
directly by the State. This system is referred to as one of “ child endow­
ment.” Moreover, in the case of many foreign countries, the salaries
of civil servants were increased in the case of larger families. The
same principle is also recognized in many social-insurance schemes,
where the benefits are adjusted to the number of dependents.
Certain other factors have entered the situation. One is the desire
of various countries, both as a military and as an industrial measure,
to encourage an increase in population, or at least a maintenance of
the present population. Another factor is the fear that in a post-war
devastated world, wages and living levels may be forced down; under
such conditions a system of family allowances or child endowment may
permit a more equitable distribution of a limited national income.
Experiments with family-allowance schemes, exclusive of those for
mobilized men, have been made in at least 38 countries, including
practically all the countries of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, 4 of
the South American countries, and the United States. The schemes
vary greatly in importance, some being simple local ventures, as in
this country; others compulsory nation-wide systems. Their common
function, however, is the granting of allowances—usually in cash—to
families to supplement their regular income from wages, salaries, or




1

2

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

other sources, to enable breadwinners to meet more adequately
expenses incurred in the maintenance of dependents. Despite the
difficulty of holding family allowances within the boundary lines of
definition, it would seem that, in general, such allocations are considered
a right or privilege and not a, dole.
In this article the attempt is made to give a brief review of the latest
available information on family allowances other than those for armed
forces, with such references to earlier history as are necessary to give
a reasonably clear picture of *the existing situation.

Types of Family-Allowance Systems
Family-allowance schemes are of 3 major types:
(1) Those confined to public services, including the armed forces.
(2) Those financed by private industry; jointly by the State and
private industry; or by the State, private industry, and the workers.
These may be either voluntary or compulsory.
(3) Those involving direct family endowment by the State.

Methods of Paying Family Allowances
In provisions for allocations for family responsibilities, the word
“ children” is frequently interpreted to mean not only legitimate
children but also legitimized and illegitimate, adopted and foster
children, and stepchildren. Wives also may be included in benefits,
and in some instances even common-law wives and divorced wives.
The number of children for whom benefits may be paid varies as to
their ages for eligibility. Even children in the higher age groups are
included under specified circumstances. In some instances only
workers in the lower income brackets are covered, but other schemes
extend these benefits to all with family responsibilities, regardless
of income level.
Payment may be made on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or
annual basis. The grant may be a percentage of salary or may take
the form of a higher wage. In some cases the allowance has no con­
nection with the wage or salary.

Family-Allowance Funds
The cost of benefits naturally varies considerably from company to
company and group to group, according to the relative number of
dependents for whom grants must be made. To meet this situation
“ compensation funds” have been created in some countries, notably
Belgium and France. These funds, operating over a considerably
wider field than that presented by the industrial firm, serve to spread
the risk and to equalize the cost of benefits among the employers.
The membership of these funds may include all employers in the
area, or may be confined to specified industries or trades. The em­
ployers affiliate with the appropriate fund, making their contributions
to it. Such contributions are calculated in various ways—on the basis
of number of days worked, total number of workers employed, total
wage bill, etc. The contributions of some agricultural funds have been
based on the amount of ground under cultivation by affiliated members.




DEVELOPMENTS, 1 9 3 9 -4 3

3

In some cases employers with large numbers of young workers without
dependents pay smaller contributions.
The advantage of the compensation funds is that by spreading the
cost over a larger group of employers, they prevent the penalizing of
those who have hired workers with large numbers of dependents, and
thus also forestall the discrimination against such workers that would
result if an individual employer had to be responsible personally for
the payments of benefits to his force.

,

Developments 1939-43
During the period 1939-43 there were developments of more or less
importance in the family-allowance field in at least 24 countries.
The Australian Child Endowment Act, assented to April 7, 1941,
provides that 5s. per week be paid for each child under 16 years of
age in excess of 1 child in each family, regardless of the income of
the parents.
The family-allowance provisions in the New Zealand Security Act
were liberalized by 1941 and 1942 legislation.
In Great Britain the growing interest in child endowment has been
manifested by increasing discussions on the subject and numerous
recommendations for the inauguration of such endowment from British
churchmen, members of Parliament, industrialists, and other influen­
tial groups. In March 1942, after years of opposition to family
allowances, the British Trades Union Congress, through its general
council, reversed its attitude and agreed with the Labor Party on the
need for a national scheme of child endowment which should be a
charge on the State. In June 1942, the British Chancellor of the
Exchequer issued a memorandum, published as a “ white paper,”
estimating the cost of a national system of child endowment under
different types of schemes. Late in the same year the British econo­
mist Sir William Beveridge recommended children's allowances in his
report on social security.
A Canadian report, proposing children’s allowances for the Domin­
ion of Canada, was also submitted in March 1943 to the Canadian
House of Commons Committee on Social Security,
In the United States, the publication by the National Education
Association, in the latter part of 19412of the results of an examination
of public-school salary schedules disclosed provisions for financial
supplements for family responsibilities for teachers in public-school
systems in 75 cities and towns.
The Federal Social Security Board, after referring to the existing
scheme of Federal grants to States under the Social Security Act for
dependent children, makes the following statement in its seventh
annual report (1942):
Consideration should be given also to extending the scope of the program by
including children whose need is due to causes other than those now specified,
i. e., the parent's death, incapacity, or absence from home. It has been suggested,
for example, that Federal matching grants should be available for approved State
plans which furnish aid to any child whose family resources are insufficient to
insure healthful growth and development.

In Latin America several acts have been passed and legislative
proposals made concerning family allowances, since the adoption of a




4

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

resolution on such allowances at the Eighth International Conference
of American States held at Lima, Peru, toward the close of 1938.
In Hungary, an act establishing a new family-allowance system
became operative on January 1, 1939, covering manual workers in the
larger mining, industrial, and commercial enterprises.
Under the nation-wide family allowance system instituted in Spain
in 1938, the amounts of allowances were doubled in 1939.
On July 29, 1939, the Family Code, which provided for unifying into
one general system the French family-allowance schemes, was adopted
in the form of a decree, the provisions of which were to become effec­
tive by degress in 1940. The French Labor Charter promulgated
October 4, 1941, gave family allowances a prominent place in the
sections dealing with wage determination.
The act providing for a general family-allowance scheme in the
Netherlands, to be financed entirely by employers, was promulgated
December 23,1939. No data are available as to the fate of the system
since the Nazi invasion.
By an act of August 6, 1940, the Italian Government announced the
discontinuance of its contribution to the family-allowance system and
gave legal confirmation to the previous abrogation of the workers’
obligation to contribute.
In 1942, family-allowance laws were enacted in both Bulgaria and
Portugal.
In 1943 provisions for family allowances were liberalized in Yugo­
slavia (Croatia).

Family Allowances in Private Employment
In the field of family allowances in private industry the most
important countries are Belgium, France, and Italy. In the first two
of these the progress of the family-allowance movement has been
notable. Initiated by private employers, the systems in both coun­
tries have since been made compulsory and nation-wide. A recent
signal development is the inclusion in these systems of the children
of employers and independent workers.
The trend in the French movement has been toward more and more
Governmental management and financing. The family-allowance
system was made general in Italy by a decree of June 17, 1937, which
effected very important changes in the internal organization of the
previous restricted scheme; later measures expanded the coverage of
the system, raised the amount of the allowances, and placed the cost
of these benefits wholly upon the employer.
SCOPE OF FAMILY-ALLOWANCE PLANS

Belgium.—As early as 1915 family allowances were being paid in the
coal-mining industry in Belgium.
A law making family allowances compulsory in private industry in
that country was passed August 4, 1930. An act of June 10, 1937,
extending the scope of family allowances to the children of employers
and independent workers, became effective by degrees from January 1,
1938. At least 2 years after the German invasion these grants were
still being paid.




PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

Bulgaria.—A family-allowance scheme was established in Bulgaria
under regulations issued by the Council of Ministers on August 4,1942.
The system was made retroactive from the first of the preceding
month. All workers of Bulgarian nationality, covered by social insur­
ance and employed in private industry, are included in the scheme.
France.—It was not until 1932 that a law was enacted in France
making the payment of family allowances compulsory for all em­
ployers, although allowances had been granted voluntarily and
extensively by private employers years before, and by certain mine
operators even before the first World War. Two decrees in 1938 so
1141
1
“ ' 11 11 vrances in agriculture as to benefit
y allowances established in France
under the act of 1932 varied appreciably in form and advantages.
This was also true of arrangements for these grants for officials and
employees of the Government, the personnel of local communities, and
public services under State, departmental, communal, and other
concessions.
These schemes were absorbed and unified in a new nation-wide
system by a decree of the President of the French Republic, July 29,
1939. This so-called Family Code provided family allowances for
the heads of families throughout the country not only in the wageearning and salaried groups but also for employers and independent
workers. The essential purpose of the code was “ to provide legislative
foundation for a social reform, the application of which, it is hoped,
may bring about an increase in the country's birth rate, and in general
ameliorate the material well-being of French family units to such an
extent as to make the raising of large families possible.”
As already stated, family allowances were provided for in the French
Labor Charter that was promulgated October 4, 1941. Whether and
in what way the established family-allowance system has been affected
by the charter is not known.
Great Britain.—It has long been a practice of the Methodist,
Presbyterian, and Baptist churches in England to grant family allow­
ances to their ministers, and limited family-allowance schemes are in
operation in some of the dioceses of the English Established Church.
The London School of Economics has for many years been paying such
benefits to its staff.
According to reports published in 1940, 1941, and 1942, there are at
least 35 industrial establishments paying family allowances in Great
Britain. Two or more of these adopted the practice in 1917, but the
great majority of the schemes were started in the period 1938-42.
Germany.—In Germany during the past few years there has been a
revival of interest in the subject of family allowances. In 1941, allow­
ances paid by private enterprises were provided for in certain collective
agreements. Also, supplements for children were still being granted
by insurance funds for medical, dental, and pharmaceutical care.
Hungary.—A new family-allowance scheme was instituted in
Hungary under an act promulgated on December 28, 1938, which
became operative January 1, 1939.
The act is applicable to all mining, industrial, and commercial
enterprises which employ on an average over 20 workers. Only
manual workers are covered.
555190°— 43------ 2




6

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Italy.—In Italy a royal decree-law of August 21, 1936, made the
family-allowanee system obligatory for all industrial workers with
dependent children, regardless of the number of hours worked per
week. Under this law collective contracts have also been made in
other branches of business (as in finance and commerce) which are
extending the coverage of the system. Under the act of June 17,1937,
and the decree of July 21, 1937, the family-allowanee system was still
further extended, the payment of family allowances being made
compulsory to wage-earner heads of families, regardless of age, sex,
or nationality.
Recent legal regulations provide that family allowances in agricul­
ture shall be restricted to persons registered on the list of agricultural
workers.
Latvia.—The Latvian law instituting family allowances in agri­
culture was amended on May 4, 1939, to expand the coverage of the
system. A decree of the Ministry of Social Welfare, of December 30,
1939, provided for additional subsidies for rural workers with
dependents.
Netherlands.—Family allowances were quite common in the Nether­
lands even before December 23, 1939, when the act providing for a
compulsory family-allowanee scheme covering the wage earners on
the pay rolls of all employers was promulgated.
Portugal.—A family-allowanee scheme was introduced by the
Portuguese Government by a legislative decree of August 13, 1942, in
accordance with the principles set forth in articles 11 and 15 of the
constitution of March 9, 1933. The decree is applicable to family
wage earners of Portuguese nationality working for an employer in
industry, commerce, the liberal professions, or corporative bodies or
organizations for economic coordination, provided such wage earners
are domiciled in Portugal. Brazilian and Spanish workers, and
nationals of other countries which grant reciprocal treatment to
Portuguese wage earners, are also covered.
Spain.—In 1938 a law was enacted in Spain instituting a compulsory
centralized system of family allowances for wage and salaried workers
in private employment.
Application to agriculture of the compulsory family-allowanee
system provided for in Spain under the act of July 18, 1938, and a
decree of October 20,1938, was so difficult that it became necessary to
issue special regulations. These were included in an act of September 1,
1939, in regulations issued the following month, and in an order of
January 17, 1940.
South America.—An Argentine act of September 4, 1940, provides
that banks shall pay family allowances. Among other private
establishments and organizations listed as making these grants in
that country in 1942 were the Argentine Electric Co., Flandria Cotton
Mill Co., Michelin Tire Co., Noel & Co. Candy Manufacturers;
Printing Office of Louis Gotelli, Argentine Model School, Central
Board of Catholic Action of Argentina, Federation of Catholic
Workers’ Clubs, and Workers’ Club of Rosario.
In Chile, in accordance with an act of February 5, 1937, and latei
decrees, and an amending act of September 12, 1941, salaried em­
ployees of private establishments and semiofficial institutions have
been granted family allowances.




PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

7

United States.—Family-allowance schemes in private employment
in the United States at present are so few in number as to be negligible.
The Salvation Army makes such grants to its officers. The principles
of the basic wage and dependency allotments have been used as a
guide in certain higher educational institutions in fixing salaries and
determining increases in pay.
Other countries.—In view of the increase in the cost of living, the
institution of a system of family allowances for low-paid workers
was decided upon by the Japanese Cabinet on February 16, 1940.
Manual workers, salaried employees, and public and municipal
officials were included in the scheme. The purpose of the measure
was to cushion the effects of the imperial orders of October 16, 1939,
concerning the regulation of wages. On February 16, 1940, the
Minister of Social Welfare sent a circular to the prefects and chiefs of
the mines-inspection offices, which defined the methods of application
of the new plan.
Prior to May 1937 a large number of factories in Japan had raised
their wage rates, because of the upward trend in prices, and labor
organizations had started a campaign for pay increases. In this
connection several companies in the textile industry introduced a new
system of family allowances.
Shortly before the outbreak of the present war, family allowances
were being paid in private industry to some extent in Czechoslovakia,
Estonia, Greece, Luxemburg, the Principality of Monaco, Poland,
and Yugoslavia.
DEPENDENT BENEFICIARIES AND ALLOWANCE RATES

Provisions concerning dependents show extreme variation in regard
to the number and relationship of the beneficiaries, and allowance
rates. Among the more common regulations were the restriction of
the allowances to children below the 14-16 age group, unless they
were continuing their education or training, ana the granting of
allowances for an indefinite period to children physically or mentally
incapable of earning their living.
Belgium.—In Belgium in 1938 allowances were being paid for
children up to 18 years of age, except in the case of children going to
work after reaching 14 years of age. Children mentally or physically
defective were eligible for allowances indefinitely. The minimum
allowances as reported in April 1938, ranged from 20.64 francs per
month for the first child to 124.00 francs per month for the fifth and
each subsequent child.
Bulgaria.—The children dependent on mothers, fathers, sisters, or
brothers in Bulgaria are granted allowances up to 21 years of age,
provided these children are not at work. The montmy allowance
rate is 100 leva for the first child and 200 leva for the otlier children.
France.—Instead of the previous allowance for the first child, the
Family Code provided that a sum ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 francs
was to be paid for a first-born legitimate child under specified condi­
tions.
All workers, including employers, in agriculture, industry, com­
merce, and the professions, with two or more children, were declared
eligible for family allowances for children under 14 years of age (or
under 17 years of age if they were continuing their education or were
apprenticed).



8

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IX VARIOUS COUNTRIES

It was provided that the rate of the allocation for the second child
should be at least 10 percent of the average salary common to the
locality in which the allocatee resided, and 20 percent for the third
and each subsequent child. Moreover, an additional allocation of 10
percent was to be granted as an assistance to the mother, when the
family depended upon a single income which was not paid during
holidays or for other reasons.
A decree of December 16, 1939, laid down the manner in which the
Family Code was to be applied under war conditions.
Great Britain—The London School of Economics, according to a
report published in 1940, was paying £30 per annum for each child
under 13 years of age and £60 per annum for each child between 13
and 23 years of age receiving a full-time education. The Association
of University Teachers approved the extension of this experiment,
but without practical results.
In the industrial establishments which have adopted family-allow­
ance schemes, the weekly allowance per child ranges from Is. to as
high as 5s. The wage limit for receiving allowances also varies, for
example, being only £5 per week in the establishment of N. Kilvert &
Sons, Ltd., and as much as £400 per annum for the staff of Pilkington
Brothers, Ltd. Cadbury Brothers, Ltd., grants a weekly supplement
of 5s. for each child after the second, regardless of the father’s salary.
J. Bibby & Sons, Ltd., pays allowances when the total income going
into the home is below a certain base which varies, however, with the
number of children under 16 years of age in the family. Brittains,
Ltd., pays £10 a year for a child until it leaves school, for members
of the staff whose income is not over £400 per annum.
Hungary.—Legitimate, adopted, or recognized illegitimate children,
under 14 years of age, dependent on a manual worker, are eligible for
family allowances. The rate of allowance is set at 5 pengos per month,
and the grants are paid through equalization funds.
At the close of 1939, an allowance of from 70 to 80 pengos was
granted to each large family having children under 12 years of age
among the agricultural workers of the County of Hejer employed by
the members of the National Union of Agricultural Employers.
Italy.— In 1940, increases were granted in the family-allowance
rates for the dependent children of workers in industry, commerce,
and agriculture. As established in that year the allowances for the
first child ranged from 0.45 lira per day for agricultural wage earners
to 100.00 lire for employees in banks; for the fourth and subsequent
children the allowances ranged from 0.90 lira per day to 135.00 lire
per month in the same classifications. Allowances were also provided
for the wives and parents of these workers and for the wives and
parents of ship’s officers and seamen.
Latvia.—An amendment of May 4, 1939, to the law instituting
family allowances in agriculture in Latvia extended the age limit for
children’s allowances up to 11 years. The previous law specified 10
years as the age limit and 5 children as the maximum number to
receive allowances.
Netherlands.—The Netherlands act of December 23, 1939, made
every wage earner employed by a private enterprise or by a community
eligible for a family allowance for each child under 15 years of age,
beginning with the third. The allowance varied according to the




PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

9

wage, the minimum being 10 cents and the maximum being 25 cents
per day.
Portugal.’—In 1942 the breadwinners’ dependents included those
whose individual means were not sufficient to maintain them and who
relied for their support, clothing, and education on the family bread­
winner. The amount of the allowance is computed on the number of
days worked, in accordance with the rates published in a schedule to
the decree.
Spain.—More substantial family allowances, together with mar­
riage loans and prizes, were provided for by a Spanish decree of
February 22, 1941. The new family-allowance rates, which were
100 percent above those provided for in the compulsory family-allow­
ance act of July 18, 1938, ranged from 30 pesetas per month for 2
children to 290 pesetas per month for 12 children.
South America.—An act of September 4, 1940, provided that the
employees in Argentine banks must be paid an allowance of 5 pesos
per month for each dependent child under 16 years of age. The
Central Bank of the Republic of Argentina has been paying family
allowances of 10 pesos per month per child under 15 years of age to all
staff members earning salaries up to 350 pesos per month.
A law of September 12, 1941 (No. 7064), of Chile amended the law
of February 5, 1937 (No. 6020), which provided for family allowances
for salaried employees in private establishments and semiofficial
institutions. These amendments included certain regulations relative
to fixing the amounts of family allowances.
According to the Foreign Commerce Weekly of February 6, 1943
(U. S. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce), the dependents
of workers jointly contributing with employers to a Public Assistance
Fund established by the Chilean Government were receiving 50 pesos
for each child under 16 years of age or dependent relative.
Japan.—Under regulations issued in 1940 by the Japanese Govern­
ment, all workers whose earnings per month were not over 70 yen
and who had one or more dependent children under 14 years of age
were to be eligible for family allowances. The average monthly
allowance rate was set at 2 yen per worker. Each establishment was
to be permitted to determine the conditions under which the allow­
ances were to be granted and to increase the amount according to the
number of the worker’s dependents.
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EQUALIZATION FUNDS

The tendency in many countries in which family-allowance schemes
have been established in private industry is to organize central funds
from which the payments are made. This equalizes the cost for
employers and prevents discrimination against workers with heavy
family responsibilities, as the contributions of individual employing
companies are assessed in such a way as to make it a matter of indiffer­
ence to them how many dependents their workers have. In England,
however, the industrial establishments that have adopted familyallowance schemes make the payments directly to their workers.
In France and Belgium the equalization funds have been multiplied
and elaborated. As already noted, the purpose of the French Family
Code of 1939 was to unify a highly complex system. In Italy in



10

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

1937 four separate funds were replaced by a single one. The Bulgarian
law of August 4, 1942, provided for one autonomous fund. Various
funds were provided, however, by the 1939 family-allowance legisla­
tion in Hungary and the Portuguese decree of August 13, 1942.
Belgium.— In 1938 all employers were required to become members
of a family-allowance fund. The funds are of several types, based on
the period at which the members were affiliated, the character of the
industry carried on, etc. A National Equalization Fund has also
been established.
Belgian employers* contributions to the funds vary according to the
cost-of-living index and have been increased or decreased by royal
decree. In April 1938 the daily rates were 1.10 francs for each man
and 0.60 franc for each woman employed. If at least 23 days are
worked in the month, the employer makes a monthly lump-sum con­
tribution which is also based on the cost-of-living index. The monthly
contributions in April 1938 were at the rate of 27.50 francs for a man
and 15 francs for a woman, this difference, it was explained, being due
to the fact that few women were supporting families and that in
practically all cases they gave up work when they acquired a family.
The funds may also claim a small additional contribution for adminis­
trative expenses.
Bulgaria.—The Family Allowance Act of 1942 required private
enterprises to contribute 10 percent of their wage and salary bills
to an autonomous fund attached to the Directorate of Labor which
administers the system.
France.—In 1940 it was compulsory for employers to become
affiliated personally with the equalization fund to which their person­
nel was already affiliated. Independent workers were to affiliate
with a special family-allowance fund or with a special section estab­
lished in an ordinary equalization fund as an independent financial
unit; this system has since been changed with a view to improving its
operation. Under an act of November 18, 1940, provision was made
for the financing of these funds.
The Family Code called for a State expenditure of 1,450,000,000
francs, to be raised by contributions from employers and the taxation
of citizens according to the family responsibilities of the taxpayers.
Netherlands.—Family allowances and their administration are
financed entirely by the employers. Their contributions are fixed
each year for the following 12 months, on the basis of, and in propor­
tion to, each employer's total wage bill. It is estimated that the
allowances represent approximately 1 percent of the combined wages
paid, or approximately 18,000,000 florins per annum.
Hungary.—Except for the expenses of administration of the central
fund, which the Government meets, employers are responsible for all
expenditures connected with the payment of family allowances,
including the organization and administration of the various equaliza­
tion funds. For the first year the contribution was 48 pengos per
male worker and 32 pengos per female worker. Organization and
administration costs are fixed at 5 percent of the income resulting
from the assessments levied upon employers.
Eight equalization funds have been established for the various
branches of mining, industry, and commerce, each fund having
country-wide jurisdiction. The central fund is under the general



PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

11

direction of the Ministry of Industry, and its operations are super­
vised by a committee on which both workers and employers have
representation.
Italy.—From the financial viewpoint, the present organization of
family allowances is based principally on a single fund (created in
1937), which replaces the four separate funds previously existing.
By a law of August 6, 1940, the Italian Government announced the
discontinuance of its contribution to the family-allowance system and
gave legal confirmation to the previous abrogation of the workers’
obligation to contribute. It also extended the system to employees
of State administrations and public establishments insofar as they
were not already receiving family aid.
Portugal.—Family-allowance funds collect the money for the system
and distribute them to the allocatees. It is compulsory for every
worker and every enterprise to become a member of a family-allowance
fund as soon as one has been established for the occupation or industry.
The finances of the funds are furnished through contributions from
both the workers and the establishments concerned, payments by
the National Family Allowances Fund, interest and other revenue,
grants, gifts, and legacies.
The legislative decree of August 13, 1942, also created a national
fund attached to the National Labor and Welfare Institute to balance
the receipts and expenditures of the regional funds, and to assist them
in carrying out their functions.
Spain.—Under 1939 and 1940 legislation, agricultural employers in
Spam must bear the entire cost of financing the allowances, their
contributions being based in part on the assessed land value and in
part on their wages bill. In case of land held on lease or cultivated
on shares, landlords may require their leaseholders or tenants to
refund the contributions paid. The amount of the allowance is based
on a monthly schedule, regardless of the number of days the recipient
has been employed.

Family Allowances in Public Employment
Based on information for 1937 or 1938, family allowances were
being paid in the State civil service of at least 19 foreign countries—
Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Hungary, Irish Free State, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Rumania, Switzerland, and
Yugoslavia. Furthermore, grants of this kind were being made in
certain State mines in Hungary, in the public service of the munici­
pality of Buenos Aires, Argentina, in certain communal agencies in
Chile, and to the Peruvian police force.
Later reports indicate that many of these public services are still
paying family allowances and that such benefits are now, or were,
just preceding the war, granted more or less in public employment in
Bohemia-Moravia, Bulgaria, French Equatorial Africa, Palestine,
Poland, and South America—in Argentina in various public adminis­
trations, in Chile, and in Peru to teachers. As previously stated, in
1941, salary differentials for family responsibilities were reported for
the school systems of 75 communities in the United States.




12

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

South America.—An order1of December 23, 1937, provided that
beginning with May 1, 1938, the municipality of Buenos Aires should
add to the monthly remuneration of its salaried and wage-earning
employees receiving up to 300 pesos per month, an allowance of 5
pesos for each child under 15 years of age wholly dependent upon the
head of the family.
Family allowances were being voluntarily granted in various public
administrative and official and mixed institutions in Argentina,
according to the February 1943 issue of Revista de Economfa Argentina.
Among the public administrations are those of the Provinces of
Catamarca, Cordoba, and Santa Fe, and the municipalities of Leones
and General Pico.

Family Endowment by the State
Although the term “ family endowment” is sometimes used inter­
changeably for “ family allowances,” as used in this section it refers
to a grant for family responsibilities made directly by the State, not as
an emergency relief measure but as a regular cash supplement based
on the fact that the budgets of larger families call for greater expendi­
tures. The inclusion and liberalizing of the long-existing system of
child endowment under the provisions of the New Zealand Social
Security Act, which became effective April 1,1939, and the Australian
Commonwealth Child Endowment Act of April 1941, are conspicuous
evidences of an accelerated trend towards greater economic security
for the family. Both these systems are country-wide in their scope,
as is also the German child-endowment system under the ordinance of
December 9, 1940, which became operative January 1, 1941. The
New Zealand act fixes an income limit for benefiting families, but the
Australian and German schemes disregard the matter of income.
The age limit for child beneficiaries except in specified circum­
stances is under 16 in the New Zealand and Australian acts.
The Finance Act of New Zealand, effective September 1, 1941,
provided that a family allowance of 4s. be payable for the first child,
the rate being adjusted so that the average weekly income of the
parents and children under 16 years of age, exclusive of the allowance,
should not exceed £5. In 1942, in accordance with an amendment
to the Social Security Act, family allowances were increased 50 per­
cent and the family-income limit was raised to £5, 5s.
In Australia the sum of 5s. per week is provided for all children under
16 years of age, in excess of one per family.
The German legislation provides that an allowance be granted to
a family for children under 21 years of age if there are 3 or more
children under that age in the family.
Under the new constitution of the United States of Brazil, large
families are entitled to allowances according to the number of their
dependent children. Needy parents have the right to apply to the
State for assistance and protection in order to secure the maintenance
and education of their children.
The Public Health Act of Turkey gives an important place to the
assistance of large families—always with the objective of reducing
infant mortality but with the further purpose of assisting mothers
and giving needed help in homes where there are many children.



ARGENTINA

13

Development of Family Allowances in Individual Countries
A R G E N T IN A

Prior to 1939, family allowances were being paid in the public service
of the municipality of Buenos Aires, and in a few private enterprises in
Argentina and had been officially recommended for employees of the
postal and telegraph services of that country. The establishments in
which family-allowance schemes were in force were listed in a report
on family allowances published by the National Civil Retirement and
Pension Fund of the Argentine Treasury Department, 1939, as follows:
Official and mixed institutions.—Government oil fields; Municipal­
ity of Buenos Aires; Municipal Loan Bank; Central Bank of the
Republic of Argentina; National Bank of Argentina; and Bank of the
Province of Buenos Aires.
Private employment.—Journal “ ElPueblo” ; German Bank of South
America; German Transatlantic Bank; Flandria Cotton Mill Co.; and
Michelin Tire Co. of Argentina.
An act of September 4, 1940, provided that the employees in Argen­
tine banks must be paid an allowance of 5 pesos per month for each
dependent child under 16 years of age.1 Family allowances of 10 pesos
per month per child under 15 years of age were paid by the Central
Bank of the Republic of Argentina to all staff members earning salaries
up to 350 pesos per month. In December 1940,2 115 employees bene­
fited by these allowances; the cost for the month was 1,910 pesos.
In 1941, the Central Board of Argentine Catholic Action petitioned
the Chamber of Deputies to include in pending social legislation Gov­
ernment subsidies for the families of wage earners having children
under 14 years of age and with income not exceeding 300 pesos per
month. It was suggested that such provision would benefit over
1,000,000 homes.3
Among the provisions of the workers’ social insurance bill, intro­
duced in the National Congress of Argentina on September 2,1941, was
one for a family-allowance scheme which may be initiated before the
insurance scheme proper, as facilities already exist and experience has
been gained along these lines in certain industrial undertakings.
The proposal was made that family allowances should be paid to mar­
ried wage earners and salaried employees with at least 6 months’ service
and wage or salary not over 250 pesos per month. The rate suggested
was 5 pesos per month for each child under 18 years of age who con­
tinued his or her secondary education or vocational training. The
cost of these grants would be met by employers’ contributions at the
rate of 2 percent of the wages of employees earning up to 250 pesos
per month.4 From July 1, 1943, cost-of-living bonuses in the Argen­
tine public administrative services will cover 185,000 workers whose
wage or salary per month is not over 250 pesos. The bonus is 10
percent of the remuneration for married men and widowers with
children and 5 percent for single men.4a
1 International Labor Review (Montreal), April 1941 (p. 437).
2 Annual report of Banco Central de la Republica Argentina, 1940, Buenos Aires, 1941 (pp. 48-49).
8 Catholic Charities Review (Washington), Novem ber 1941 (p. 263).
4 International Labor Review (Montreal), March 1942 (pp. 342 and 344). Torcuato D i Telia: Dos Temas
de Legislacion del Trabajo. Projectos de ley de Seguro Social obrero y asignaciones familiares, Buenos Aires,
International Labor Review (Montreal), September 1943 (p. 380).

555190°— 43------ 3




14

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
A U S T R A L IA

The Australian Commonwealth Child Endowment Act of April
7, 1941, provides for an allowance of 5 shillings per week for each
child under 16 years of age in excess of one child in each family,
regardless of the income of the parents.5 It was explained that the
basic wage (according to the findings of the Arbitration Court of
the Commonwealth) was adequate for a man, wife, and one child,
and that malnutrition existed to a serious extent only in families
with a large number of children.
The endowment is to be granted for all children for whom special
allowances were being paid at the time the law became effective,
for example, the children of soldiers and war pensioners. Children
in private institutions also come under the act, but children in State
institutions are excluded. British subjects from overseas will be
covered by the endowment provisions after a 12-month residence.
Aliens’ children bom in the Commonwealth will receive the en­
dowment (being citizens of Australia), as will also children of aliens
from the time the parents are naturalized. It was also proposed
to include in the endowment scheme the children of aborigines and
half-castes when their living standard is comparable to that of white
Australians.
The number of children in .Australia under 16 years of age was
said to be approximately 1,830,000, of whom about 1,000,000 were
members of families with more than 1 dependent child. The annual
cost of the endowment for children above the first in the family was
estimated as £13,000,000. Including all children, an additional
£11,000,000 per annum would be necessary.
The funds for meeting the expenditures under the new act are
to be raised by a pay-rdl tax of 2}{ percent on amounts exceeding
£20 per week, or £1,040 per annum. The estimated amount from
this source is £9,000,000. It is expected that an additional £2,000,000
will be raised through extra income tax as a result of the discontinuance
of the income-tax deductions for each child after the first.
The New South Wales endowment scheme was discontinued upon
the inauguration of the Commonwealth plan.6
At the close of July 1941, claims for endowment had been received
for an average of 2 children in each of 440,921 families. On July 29,
1941, the benefits paid aggregated £900,000.7
An interim report of September 9, 1941, of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee, appointed to study ways and means of improving Aus­
tralian social and living conditions, urged the adoption of a Common­
wealth Social Security Act in order to insure the progress of social
services of Australia in accordance with an organized plan.8 The
committee also recommended the employment of trained social
workers in connection with the administration of child endowment.9
In November 1941, the Minister for Health and Social Services
8 Industrial Gazette (New South Wales Department of Labor and Industry and Social Services, Sydney),
April 1941. A t the meeting of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions in Melbourne, early in June 1941,
it was decided to ask the Government to increase the child-endowment payment to 12?. 6d. for each child,
because of the continued rise in the cost of living. (International Labor Review (Montreal), October 1941,
p. 461.)
6 Report from American Consul Lacey C . Zapf at Sydney, Australia, April 17,1941.
7 International Labor Review (Montreal), October 1941 (p. 406).
* Idem, April 1942 (p. 468).
• Industrial Gazette (N ew South Wales Department of Labor, Industry and Social Services, Sydney),
October 1941 (pp. 51-53).




BELGIUM

15

stated that the Government hoped to introduce amendments to the
Child Endowment Act, providing for children of parents who were
not living together and for widows’ children under 16 years of age.10
Employees in the public service of Australia had been receiving
family allowances since 1920 and a State government child-endowment
scheme had been in operation in New South Wales about 14 years.11
Attitude oj labor.—For some years prior to the passage of the
Australian Child Endowment Act, the Labor Party had included such
endowment in its platform.
In 1940 at a meeting in Sydney, New South Wales, the Council of the
Australian Railways Union urged the establishment of a noncontribu­
tory scheme of child endowment, emphasizing that the scheme should
not be financed from the tax on wages, nor “ be considered in any arbi­
tration court proceedings for the purpose of cutting down wages or be
limited by the wage rates.” 12
BELGIUM

Both public and private employees in Belgium received family allow­
ances before the outbreak of the present war. Family allowances were
made compulsory in private industry in Belgium by a law passed
August 4, 1930. A royal decree law of March £0, 1936, modified this
act and coordinated previous royal decrees on the subject. An act of
June 10, 1937, extending the scope of family allowances to include
children of employers and independent workers, became effective by
degrees from January 1, 1938,13 the cost being met by the persons
covered.14 Detailed regulations for the application of the act were set
forth in an order on December 22, 1938.15 A royal decree of May 16,
1939, approved the modification of the regulation of certain Belgian
family allowance funds.16
An examination of the legislative record in those numbers of the
Revue du Travail that have been received by the United States
Department of Labor Library since the German invasion of Belgium,
discloses that other decrees have been issued concerning the adminis­
tration of the Belgian family-allowance system.
An order of August 1, 1940, prescribes a number of measures for the
purpose of stabilizing Belgian wages and salaries “ in the interest of
national economy.” These provisions are modeled chiefly on those
previously adopted in Germany. The order prohibits any advance in
the rates of wages and salaries in force on May 10, 1940—the date the
country was invaded. Moreover, the ban is also applicable to all cus­
tomary allowances and bonuses, and also affects the payment of new
allowances and bonuses, either regular or exceptional: “ Only increases
arising out of the application of legislation are excluded.” 17
From April 30 to May 31, 1941, inclusive, five decrees were issued
regulating or readjusting the rates of contribution of employers in
connection with the payment of family allowances.18
10 Idem, December 1941 (p. 640).
h M onthly Labor Review M a y 1939 (pp. 1039-40,1042-43).
12 International Transport Workers’ Federation, Press Report N o. 24, Novem ber 11,1940 (p. 80).
is M onthly Labor Review, M a y 1939 (p. 1029).
1* Recent Developments in Family Allowances, b y Clare Hoffner. In International Labor Review
(M ontreal), April 1940 (pp. 341-342).
i* R evue du Travail (Brussels), September 1939 (p. 1437).
i« Idem, July 1939 (p. 1133).
17 International Labor Review (Montreal), March 1941 (p. 335).
M Revue du Travail (Brussels), July 1941 (pp. 570-576).




16

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
B O H E M IA -M O R A V IA

An allowance of 200 crowns for unmarried and 300 crowns for mar­
ried civil servants, whose basic salaries did not exceed 9,000 crowns a
year, was provided for by a legislative decree of May 25,1939, effective
July 10, 1939, in Bohemia-Moravia (formerly a part of Czechoslo­
vakia) . In addition, married officials were to receive 50 crowns for each
dependent child. These sums were provided as an indemnity for salary
decreases made in 1928.19
“ Adequate” family allowances were provided for persons with fam­
ily responsibilities who were subject to the system of forced labor
inaugurated in Bohemia-Moravia by the Protectorate decree of July
25, 1939.20 Under the decree all male citizens between the ages of 16
and 25 were made liable for forced civil labor service for 1 to 2 years.
A decree of August 24, 1939, provided among other things that the
forced service could be required on work of all kinds.
B R A Z IL

The 1937 Constitution of Brazil contained a clause providing for
grants to large families according to the number of their children. A
national commission fpr family protection was appointed under a de­
cree of November 10, 1939. This body was charged with the duty of
drafting legislation for family protection. Among the provisions to
be included were marriage loans, family bonuses, and other special
benefits in favor of large families.21
A family code (decree-law No. 3200) was signed April 19, 1941.
This measure, while maintaining the characteristics of preceding leg­
islation on marriage, contained provisions designed to promote the
growth of families.22 Outstanding among these provisions was the
imposing of additional taxation on the incomes of bachelors and child­
less couples. Registration taxes in normal, secondary, and technical
schools, either official or Government-supervised, and any Federal
taxes on the school activities of the students were to be subject to the
following reductions: 20 percent for families with more than 1 child;
a reduction of 40 percent for a third child; and a reduction of 60 per­
cent for the fourth and all subsequent children. Further, under the
decree, any Federal, State, or municipal official permanently commis­
sioned but temporarily inactive or retired, or any military officer (ac­
tive, reserve, on leave, or retired), who is the head of a large family and
whose full or partial pay per month is under 500 milreis, receives a
monthly family bonus of 20 milreis per child. If the income is more
than 500 milreis but less than a conto (1,000 milreis) per month, the
bonus for each child is 10 milreis.
According to decree-law No. 3284 of May 19,1941, the order of pref­
erence among candidates for Government positions obtainable through
competitive examinations and for promotion, favors the married can­
didate with the greatest number of children, other qualifications
being equal. In cases of promotion by merit, even a married man
without children is to be preferred to a bachelor whose public service
is Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), August 21, 1939 (pp. 266-267).
20 M onthly Labor Review, December 1939 (p. 1406).
21 Report from Jefferson Caffery, American Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Brazil,
R io de Janeiro, November 17, 1939.
a Brazilian Information Bureau, Brazil Today (N ew Y ork), June-August 1941 (p. 10).




CANADA

17

is longer, provided other qualifications are equal. The unmarried
candidate with recognized children also has a preferential status.
A decree of April 22, 1943, contains regulations with reference to
the provisions of the decree of April 19, 1941, and reads in part as
follows:
All the heads of large families defined as those having 8 or more dependent
children under 18 years of age and of Brazilian nationality, are entitled to receive
family allowances if their income is not sufficient for their essential minimum
needs. The family allowance amounts to 100 cruzeiros 22a per month for the
first 8 children plus 20 cruzeiros for each additional child. The application for
allowance must be prescribed to the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labor
or the office representing that Ministry.

Until the system becomes more definitely established, payments
will be made out of funds supplied by the Federal Government and
by the State and municipality in which the family lives, the share of
these agencies in the expenditure being respectively 50, 40, and 10
percent.23
BULGARIA

A family-allowance scheme was established in Bulgaria under regu­
lations issued by the Council of Ministers on August 4, 1942, and was
retroactive from July 1, 1942. Employers in public and private enter­
prises pay the cost of the system.
Family allowances are payable to all workers of Bulgarian nationality or origin
who are covered by social insurance and are employed in private industrial under­
takings, tobacco factories, mines, and electric-power stations, and to workers and
employees in public, communal, or autonomous institutions, undertakings, and
estates.
In addition to the father or mother, a sister or brother who supports minor
children may be regarded as the head of the family. The allowance is payable up
to the age of 21 years provided that the child does not work.24

The Directorate of Labor administers the system, a special section
and an autonomous fund having been attached to this office to carry
out the new system.
Private enterprises pay contributions amounting to 10 percent of
the wages and salaries paid by them. Special appropriations in the
budgets of public agencies and institutions cover their 10-percent
contributions.
The monthly allowance rate is 100 leva for the first child and 200 leva
for subsequent children. Applicants receive their allowances upon the
presentation of their social-insurance cards and certificates attesting
their civil condition.
CANADA

The question of family allowances has been studied officially in
the Dominion at different periods. Thus, such allocations were in­
cluded with the subjects designated for study in 1929 by the Select
Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations appoint­
ed in the House of Commons. The pros and cons presented in the
testimony at the hearings of this Committee showed a wide variety
of opinion on the matter ranging from condemnation to endorsement.25
Effective from November 1, 1942, the monetary unit cruzeiros is equivalent to the Brazilian milreis.
» International Labor Review (Montreal), September 1943 (pp. 348-349).
» Idem, April 1943 (p. 529).
2 * Canada.
House of Commons. Select Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations.
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 26,1929 (p. 11) and April 30,1929 (pp. 112-114).




18

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

The Committee's report, June 6, 1929, stated that more careful consid­
eration was needed and no immediate action would be recommended.26
The Quebec Provincial Social Insurance Commission, appointed in
1930, was of the unanimous opinion that at that time there was no
opportunity for the legal institution of such allowances in Quebec.
Furthermore, the commission held that “ it would be impossible and
dangerous to extend family allowances to the whole population and to
make them a State institution." 27
It is suggested in an article in the Canadian Forum of February 1943
that family allowances be granted under a food-stamp plan, which in
the United States was originally instituted to provide extra food for
those in the low-income brackets and to assist farmers by establishing
a larger outlet for their products, particularly their surplus output.
The establishment of allowances for all cnildren was recommended
in a Social Security Plan for Canada submitted on March 16,1943, in
a report of the House of Commons Social Security Committee by the
Minister of Pensions. The report was prepared by the research advis­
ers to the Advisory Committee on Reconstruction. The fixing of a
basic minimum standard of income was also recommended. Among
the benefits under the proposed scheme are allowances for all children
under 16 years of age, regardless of parents' income. The suggested
monthly grants range from $5 for a child under 4 years of age to
$12.50 for a child between 15 and 16. No premiums were to be paid
for these allowances. However, it is proposed that the present incometax deduction for children be abolished.27*
The Quebec Plan

The Quebec Collective Agreement Act has now been amended “ to
add family allowances to the provisions of a collective agreement which
may be made binding on employers and employees who were within
the scope of the voluntary agreement and on all those to whom it was
extended by order-in-council." A brief analysis of this new legislation
is given in the July 1943 issue of the Canadian Labor Gazette (pp.
1026-27).
When each provision for family allowances is made, the joint com­
mittee charged with the responsibility of enforcing the agreement may
perform the following functions: “ Collect contributions, pay the allow­
ances either directly or indirectly through the employer, and verify the
existence of the dependents for whom the allowances are payable * * *
determine the person to whom the allowance is to be paid."
It will be recalled that the Quebec Collective Agreement Act pro­
vides that when an organization of employees and one or more em­
ployers or an association of employers enter into a collective agree­
ment, either party to the agreement may apply to the Minister of
Labor of Quebec to have the terms of the agreement which relate to
wages, working hours, apprenticeship, and certain other matters
“ made binding throughout the Province or within a certain district
on all employers and employees in the trade or industry covered by
the agreement."
According to America, issue of August 14, 1943, the Minister of
Labor who sponsored the bill for family allowances considers this
* M onthly Labor R eview, September 1930 (p. 91).
27 Canadian Labor Gazette (Ottawa), August 1932 (p. 861).
M ontreal Gazette, March 17,1943 (p. 1).




CHILE

19

recent amendment to the Collective Agreement Act as “ merely a stra­
tegic starting point” ; there was no intention that these allocations
should be restricted to the workers at present covered. “ Social legisla­
tion,” he holds “ must progress by evolution and not revolution. When
public opinion has been sufficiently prepared for a general system of
family allowances it will be very easy to extend it.”
Attitude of Labor Organizations

From time to time the matter of establishing a family-allowance
scheme in the Dominion has been taken up by trade-union federations.
The Trades and Labor Congress of Canada in 1929 opposed a proposal
for the introduction of such a scheme,28 while the All-Canadian Con­
gress of Labor in the same year went on record as favoring State pro­
vision for family allowances to wage earners.29 At the 1940 annual
convention of the Trades and Labor Congress, the executive council,
after reviewing the origin and purpose of family-allowance legislation
in other countries “ where it had had the effect of preventing wage in­
creases to meet the requirements of workers,” recommended that “ the
policy of the Congress be one of opposition to the introduction of such
legislation in Canada.” The basis of this recommendation was that
“ there was no evidence of the legislation having resulted favorably to
the workers generally.” 30
The Canadian Federation of Catholic Workers has been especially
interested in family allowances. On December 20,1939, it submitted a
memorandum to the Quebec Government, recommending a system of
family allowances.31 However, in 1941, the president of the federation
in addressing the annual convention, contended that to grant family
allowances to workers in low-wage industries would make it impossible
for them to get fair wages on a family basis for the future. Conse­
quently, his organization was in favor of the payment of family allow­
ances only in such industries as provided wages ample enough for an
average household's normal needs.32 At its annual meeting with the
Quebec Government on January 29, 1942, the federation suggested a
study of the whole subject of family allowances.33
C H IL E

An act of 1937, establishing minimum rates of pay for salaried
employees in private industry and semiofficial institutions, also
provided for an extra allowance for each dependent under 18 years
of age. In 1939 the allowance in the case of journalists was raised
for 1939 to 23 pesos per month (the 1938 rate was only 19.40 pesos).34
The question of increases was also among the subjects discussed
at the national convention of the organization of salaried employees
in private industry in September 1939.35 In the same year the
Chilean Department of Social Insurance drafted a bill providing
for family allowances for workers covered by the compulsory socialM onthly Labor Review, Novem ber 1929 (p. 66).
Labor Gazette (Ottawa), December 1929 (p. 1364).
w Canadian Congress Journal (Montreal), October 1940 (p. 11).
*l Canadian Labor Gazette (Ottawa), January 1940 (p. 18).
32 Idem, October 1941 (p. 1252).
38 Idem, February 1942 (p. 182).
84 Chile, Departamento de Prevision Social. Prevision Social (Santiago), Novem ber and December 1938
(p. 275).
3i Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), December 11, 1939 (p. 306).
28

2 ®Canadian




20

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

insurance system.36 This measure would have provided for allowances
for all children under 14 years of age, at a rate beginning at 20 pesos
per month per child; the rate would, however, be revised each year.
The system was to be financed by the employers by a contribution
amounting to 12 percent of pay roll. As far as is known, no action
was taken on this proposal.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA

A legislative decree of December 30, 1938 (No. 380), provided
that the special allowances for married employees in the Czecho­
slovakian public service should be reduced by 28 percent and in
some cases by 35 percent.37
FINLAND

A committee on population, appointed by the Government of
Finland, in 1941 submitted a report on family allowances. After
calling attention to the decline in the natural increase of the popula­
tion and to the duty of the State to eliminate, if possible, any economic
causes of this trend, the committee proposed the payment of State
family allowances to needy families having three or more children
under 15 years of age.
A needy family, according to the committee’s definition, would be
one whose annual income for taxation purposes is not more than
12,000 markkaa in localities where the cost of living is lowest and
not over 24,000 markkaa in places where the cost of living is highest.
The suggested family allowances would be 450, 550, 650, and 750
markkaa a year, in accordance with the cost of living in the locality,
for each child eligible for these grants. Only families with at least 4
children would be paid an allowance for each child. In families
with three children, allowances would be paid for only two of these
dependents. The total proposed allowances range from 900 markkaa
for a family with three children and an income of 12,000 markkaa
to 5,250 markkaa for a family with seven children and an income
of 24,000 markkaa.
It was estimated by the committee that at the time the report was
made the number of eligible children in Finland approximated 400,000.
The cost of the proposed scheme was estimated as 150,000,000 markkaa.
To meet the expenditure the committee proposed a so-called popula­
tion levy in addition to local taxes, such levy being expected to yield
approximately 130,000,000 markkaa. This would be supplemented
by the so-called “ bachelor tax,” payable by those who have no family
responsibilities and estimated at 25,000,000 markkaa per annum,
which would complete the amount required for family allowances.
The committee also took into account the special difficulties of wage
earners whose wages had not risen in proportion to the cost of living,
and proposed that a somewhat larger family allowance should be
granted. This would be financed by an employers’ contribution at the
rate of one-half percent of the workers’ pay. It was estimated that this
would provide an allowance 50 percent higher than the ordinary rates.
On February 20, 1941, at a conference of representatives of the
central organizations of employers and workers in Finland, the Minis­
* Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), M ay 15, 1939 (p. 637).
w Idem, February 6, 1939 (pp. 179-181).




FRANCE

21

ter of Social Affairs explained the Government’s attitude on wage and
employment questions. It was the first time a conference of this kind
had been held in that country under official auspices. Among the
subjects taken up was the possibility of establishing wage boards and
a family-allowanee system.38
FRANCE

In 1932 a law was enacted in France making the payment of family
allowances compulsory for all employers, although allowances had been
granted voluntarily and extensively by private employers years before,
and by certain mine operators even before the first World War. Two
decrees in 1938 so extended the system of family allowances in agri­
culture as to benefit practically all the rural population.
The numerous schemes for family allowances established in France
under the act of 1932 varied appreciably in form and advantages.
This was also true of arrangements for these grants for officials and
employees of the Government, the personnel of local communities,
and public services under State, departmental, communal, and other
concessions.
By a decree of January 14, 1939, annual rates of family allowances
for civil-service employees were increased beginning with the second
child; the resultant scale was 660 francs for the first child, 1,200
francs for the second, 2,500 francs for the third, and 3,000 francs for
the fourth.39 Three French decrees of June 19, 22, and 24, 1939, re­
spectively, extended and improved the family-allowanee system, espe­
cially for agricultural wage earners, small farmers, and rural artisans.40
These schemes were absorbed and unified in a new nation-wide
system by a decree of the President of the French Kepublic, July 29,
1939. This so-called Family Code provided family allowances for
the heads of families throughout the country not only in the wageearning and salaried groups but also for employers and independent
workers. The essential purpose of the code was “ to provide legislative
foundation for a social reform, the application of which, it is hoped,
may bring about an increase in the country’s birth rate, and in general
ameliorate the material well-being of French family units to such an
extent as to make the raising of large families possible.”
This measure was drafted by the Minister of Labor in collaboration
with the Minister of the Interior and of Finance, and was reported to
be the outcome of a careful study of many proposals presented to the
French High Committee on Population. This measure extended a
social policy which has been followed over a considerable period, nota­
bly by employers in France, who paid family allowances voluntarily
before they were made compulsory in 1932. With this long experience
as a basis for planning more extensive assistance, the French Govern­
ment needed only to elaborate and perfect an undertaking which to a
large extent it already had in operation, and to incorporate only such
new proposals as the application of a more comprehensive policy
demanded.
a* Arbetarbladet, Helsingsfors, February 21 and 25, 1941, quoted in International Labor Review
(Montreal), July 1941 (p. 62).
a®International Labor Office, The International Labor Office Year-Book (M ontreal), 1938-39 (p. 226).
Report of United States Consul Benjamin M . Hulley, Paris, June 27,1939.
5 5 5 1 9 0 °— 43-------- 4




22

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

The French Labor Charter of October 4, 1941, provided for sweep­
ing changes in industrial and labor relations. In the analysis of the
charter given to the press, it is explained that “ where an existing or­
ganization can adjust itself to the new provisions its representatives
will not be systematically eliminated when the charter is applied.” 41
Family allowances were provided for in the charter as indicated later
on in this article.
Provisions of Family Code 42

Instead of the previous allowance for the first child, the Family Code
provided that from 2,000 to 3,000 francs were to be paid for a first­
born legitimate child—one-half of the amount at birth and the remainder
after 6 months, provided the infant was alive, of French nationality, and
bom within 2 years after the parents’ marriage. The second half of the
bonus was payable on condition that the child was under the care of
its parents. A legitimate child bom of aliens in France was not eligible
for the premium unless its French nationality was irrevocably assured
within 6 months of its birth, under articles 2, 3, and 5 of the act of
August 10, 1927.
All workers, including employers, in agriculture, industry, com­
merce, and the professions, with two or more children, were declared
eligible for family allowances for children under 14 years of age (or un­
der 17 years af age if the latter were continuing their education or
were apprenticed).
The decree stipulated that the rate of the allocation for the second
child should be at least 10 percent of the average salary common to
the locality in which the allocatee resided, and 20 percent for the third
and each subsequent child. Moreover, an additional allocation of 10
percent was to be granted as an assistance to the mother, when the
family depended upon a single income which was not paid during
holidays or for other reasons.
Employers in industrial and commercial enterprises and in the lib­
eral professions and independent workers in an industrial or commer­
cial occupation or liberal profession are entitled to receive family
allowances. Employers must affiliate with the equalization fund to
which their personnel is already affiliated; and independent workers
should affiliate with a special family-allowance fund or a special sec­
tion established in an ordinary equalization fund as an independ­
ent financial unit.43
Provisions jor farm households.—For the maintenance of farmers’
families, and to encourage a return to the land, loans of from 5,000
to 20,000 francs were made obtainable, for investment in livestock,
implements, building, etc., to French male citizens over 21 and under
30 years of age,44 single or widowed. The borrower, however, must
be about to marry a single or widowed woman at least 18 and not
over 28 years of age. Furthermore, the prospective groom must have
worked at least 5 years in an agricultural institution of instruction, an
agricultural undertaking, or at the house of a rural artisan. The couple
must agree that for at least 10 consecutive years from the celebration
of their marriage they will continue in agricultural or rural work.
41 International Labor Review (Montreal), March 1942.
42 Data are from report of Robert D . M urphy, counselor of American Embassy at Paris, dated August 9,
1939; Journal Officiel (Paris), July 30,1939; and International Labor Office Year-Book, 1939-40 (pp. 193-194).
« Journal Officiel, July 30,1939, quoted in Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), Novem ber 6,
1989 (pp. 155-166).
44 For the first 2 years after the enactment of the code, the age was to be extended to 32 years.




FRANCE

23

The loan thus made was to be repaid in 20 semiannual installments,
including interest at 4% percent, the first installment becoming due
2 years after the celebration of the marriage of the borrower. Follow­
ing the birth of each child, the installments still'due were to be reduced
according to the following scale: Half of 1 percent of the amount
of the initial loan for the first child, and 1y2 percent, 3 percent, and
5 percent for the second, third, and fourth child, respectively; and
when a fifth child is born the remaining debt was to be canceled.
The funds required to finance this assistance to farm households
were to be loaned by the State to the National Agricultural Credit
Fund.
The children of a farmer cultivating land on his own account,
who were over 18 years of age, and who worked for him without cash
wages, might be credited under a labor contract with deferred wages
equal to half of the annual wage of an agricultural worker or farm
servant with lodging and meals. The deferrred wages were cumulative
for not more than 10 years and were available for the children upon
the death of their parents.
Family protection.—Provision was made for State protection of
mothers, children, and the race, the basic principle governing this
protection being the furthering of the development of family units.
Especially favorable consideration was given to large families in
“ an effort to combat the prevalent tendency in France of one-child
families, which has even threatened to develop in late years into
families of no children.”
To prevent violations of the code and to aid in furthering its ob­
jectives, provision was made for the establishment of a special service
to reduce infant mortality, adopted children were granted the same
rights as legitimate children, and certain establishments were to
be designated in each Department of France which would be obliged
to admit without formality women of 7 months’ pregnancy and
mothers with newborn children.
Fiscal provisions.—The decree provided that funds necessary for
the application of the code, including administration, should be
raised by taxation. Inheritance taxes were cut in favor of heirs
with three or more children, but special inheritance taxes were
required of persons who at the age of 30 were without children when
an estate was divided.
Single, divorced, and widowed persons over 30 years of age with
no chUdren and families with no children were made liable to a heavier
family-compensation tax, which was to be substituted for the special
income tax to which these classes of taxpayers were previously subject.
For single persons this new tax would run from 3 percent of a taxable
income of 50,000 francs to 20 percent of a taxable income above
800,000 francs. For families with no children, the range was from
2 percent to 14 percent of the taxable income. Provision was also
made that an indirect tax be applied as a surtax of 300 francs on
every hectoliter of pure alcohol used in manufacturing aniseed bev­
erages which contam less than 400 grams of sugar per liter, and in
general on aperitifs with a wine or alcoholic base.
It was further provided under the decree of July 29, 1939, that
State officials and staff should be paid allowances under the same




24

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

conditions as other beneficiaries covered by the legislation. However,
the application of this particular decree to families with at least two
dependent children born before January 1, 1940, might in no instance
reduce the total allowance previously paid for these children, due
consideration being given, when necessary, to the new allowance
for mothers in the home. It was also provided that the allowance
rate formerly paid to families with one child would be continued
until January 1, 1941.45
A decree of December 16, 1939, laid down the manner in which
the Family Code was to be applied under war conditions. Some
provisions, for instance the first birth bonuses, were to go into effect
on the date originally set—January 1, 1940. The operation of other
provisions was to be postponed in accordance with circumstances,
until April 1 and July 1, 1940.46
An act of November 18, 1940, amended the Family Code, mainly
in regard to the computation of wages on which allowances were
based and the allowance rates. The amending measure provided
that two monthly average wages be fixed by orders in each depart­
ment—one for urban and the other for rural districts. These orders
must be signed by the Ministers and Secretaries of State for Industrial
Production and Labor, Agriculture, and Finance after consultation
with the competent authorities.
For workers regularly employed by the same employer and working
the full weekly hours when the establishment was actually in operation
“ the number of daily allowances corresponding to a week's work may
not be less than the number of working days in a week.”
The allowances for mothers in the home were granted to wage-earn­
ing families with at least one dependent child, when the earned income
was derived from only one source—the work of the father, or the
mother, or from the work of a grandparent if he supported the child.
The amount of allowance was 10 percent of the average departmental
wage for urban communes. For an only child, the allowance was pay­
able until the child had completed its fifth year. Where there was
more than one child, the grant was made until the youngest was 14
years old. The allowances were continued until the youngest was 17
if the mother or wage-earning parent or grandparent responsible for
the child's support assumed the entire responsibility for such support.47
The system of equalization funds for independent workers was also
changed with a view to improving its operation. Under another act
of November 18, 1940, provision was made for the financing of these
funds.47
A decree of March 29,1941, provided for a new allowance to be paid
to families whose income is derived from the wage or salary of a single
breadwinner who supports the children eligible for such allowance.
This new grant is substituted for the allowance for the mother-inthe-home and is computed as a percentage of the average departmental
wage or salary of the worker on which other family allowances properly
so-called are based. The rates are 20 percent for 1 child up to 5
years of age, 10 percent for one child over 5 years of age, 25 percent for
2 dependent children, and 30 percent for more than 2 dependent chil­
49Journal Officiel, July 30,1939, quoted in Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), Novem ber 6,1939
(p. 166).
46 International Labor Office. International Labor Year-Book, 1939-40 (Montreal), 1940 (p. 194).
<7 Journal Officiel, quoted in International Labor Review (Montreal), M ay 1941 (pp. 593-594).




GERMANY

25

dren.47a This single wage or salary allowance is paid in addition to
other family allowances.
An act of September 9, 1942, extended family allowances and also
the new single wage or salary allowance to widows with family respon­
sibilities who are not wage earners.48
Labor Charter

As already stated, family allowances were provided for in the new
French Labor Charter, promulgated October 4, 1941, which sets forth
the following four general principles for the determination of wages: 49
(1) The minimum living wage, fixed for each region, department,
or locality on the recommendation of a higher wage committee, is
deemed to be the remuneration for a person without family responsi­
bilities or occupational skill. It varies with the place of employment
and the local cost of living.
(2) The occupational remuneration corresponding to a particular
degree of occupational skill varies according to the occupation and the
place of employment. It is fixed in the form of a coefficient applied
to the minimum living wage to which it forms a supplement.
(3) Bonuses may be paid for the purpose of taking into account the
vocational aptitude of the person concerned, his output, conditions of
employment, etc.
(4) Allowances and bonuses for dependents which are payable by
law or under special regulations are added to wages.
The occupational families may make agreements with each other
which are to be approved by the public authorities and may establish
equalization funds to facilitate the applications of the wage principles.
If necessary, the State will make a financial contribution to meet the
expenses involved in the application of the above program, in order to
aid in the initial operation of the equalization funds or in case of excep­
tional conditions.
FRENCH EQUATORIAL AFRICA

Data on the initial social-welfare measures adopted by the adminis­
tration of French Equatorial Africa and the Mandated Territory of
French Cameroons indicate that the family-allowance system has
been improved.60 Formerly, the mothers of four children had been
exempt from all taxation. An order of December 13, 1940, also ex­
empted the fathers of families with not less than four children. Under
an order of November 6, 1940, indigenous officials were granted a
considerable increase in allowances for their dependents. The rates
for French civil and military officials were also advanced.
At the time the report was made the administration was urging com­
mercial and industrial companies to introduce similar allowances for
their employees.
GERMANY

The family-allowance system in Germany was modified by an ordi­
nance of December 9, 1940, which went into effect January 1, 1941.
From that date it was provided that a monthly allowance of 10 reichs­
<?a Journal Officiel (V ichy), April 11,1941 (pp. 1554-1555).
« Idem, September 15,1942 (pp. 3138-3139).
49 International Labor Review (Montreal), March 1942 (p. 278).
«° Idem, October 1941.




26

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

marks should be paid to all German heads of families residing in the
“ Grand-Reich” who have at least three children under 21 years of age.
According to Soziale Praxis (Berlin) of March 15, 1941,50a in making
these grants the objective of the State is to develop the number of
“ healthy families worthy of the German community.” Consequently,
those entitled to family allowances are the heads of families of German
nationality who submit themselves unrestrictedly to taxation, have
their domicile or their habitual residence in the parts of the Reich
where the fiscal law is applicable (for German nationals residing in the
Protectorate, for example, special provisions exist), and whose families
include three children or more under 21 years of age. Under “children”
are included not only legitimate children but stepchildren, and adopted
children (of German or related blood, that is to say, in general, of
European origin except Jews and Spanish gypsies).
The allowance is granted regardless of the income or the financial
circumstances of the parents and the children. Furthermore, the
State allowance may be paid even when the family is in receipt of
other family allowances. On the other hand, subordinate adminis­
trative authorities, especially sanitary officers and the regional direc­
tors of the German Workers National Socialist Party, may protest the
payment of these allowances, with a view to assuring the purity of
blood in numerous and politically irreproachable families.
The allowance may be granted starting with the first child when the
head of the family is stricken with a disability of at least 85 percent
incapacity for work, or when he receives a sick benefit; when the head
of the family is a single woman; or in the case of a single woman with
children; or when the children are complete orphans. When children
are those of an unmarried mother, the father must be known. Italians
are treated as Germans, by virtue of a reciprocal agreement. The
nationals of other countries may receive family allowances under an
exception if the subordinate administrative authorities and the
National Socialist Party consent.
In order to obtain a family allowance the request must be made to
the Finance Administration. After examination by that office the
request is transmitted to the subordinate administrative authorities
and to the National Socialist Party.
An allowance is not subject to seizure. The State, however, may
divert such benefit to meet an obligation to the State—for example, the
payment of taxes—when such action does not imperil the maintenance
of the children. Persons entitled to family allowances may request
that the taxes they owe the State be deducted from the amount of
their allowances.
The new regulation reduced, from 20 to 10 reichsmarks, the amount
of the allowance previously granted for the fifth and subsequent
children. However, this reduction was offset by the extension of the
age limits. In future the allowance is to be paid up to 21 years of
age instead of up to 16.
The family allowances are the responsibility of the State. However,
allowances paid by private enterprises are provided for in certain col­
lective agreements. Also, supplements for children are granted by
insurance funds for medical, dental, and pharmaceutical care. Offi­
cials, agents, and persons working for public administrative agencies
*>» Quoted in Revue du Travail (Belgium, Ministere du Travail et de la Prfivoyance Sociale, Brussels).
March 1941.




GREAT BRITAIN

27

receive allowances for children. These allowances are not uniform,
their amounts often vary with the number of dependent children, as
was the case for family allowances to officials and employees of public
administrations (the allowance has since been fixed uniformly at 20
reichsmarks per child). Sometimes this allowance is paid for the first
child, at other times it begins only with the fourth or fifth child. The
age limit is sometimes 16 and sometimes 21 years.
In all cases the new regulation was a step toward the integration of
family allowances into the German salary and tax system.
During a period of about the first 2 months in 1941, a total of 2
million families had received 50,000,000 reichsmarks in family allow­
ances.
GREAT BRITAIN

Except in the armed forces, so-called family-allowance systems
have shown little progress in Great Britain, although State aid has
been given to the children of war pensioners, civilian widows, the un­
employed, the indigent, and the relatively well-to-do—thelast-mentioned through income-tax exemptions. Child evacuees have recently
been added to the persons receiving Government assistance.51
At the opening of the present war, grants had been made for over
150 years for the children of Methodist ministers in England. The
latest available report on this subject gives 8 guineas per annum as
the allowance for each child up to 18 years and an additional 12 guin­
eas per annum for the child during its last 6 years of education. The
Presbyterian Church in England also grants ministers whose stipends
are under £400 per annum £15 a year for each child and a supple­
ment of £15 per annum during the years of education. The Bap­
tist denomination gives allowances of £10 for each child in certain of
its churches. Limited family-allowance schemes are in operation in
some of the dioceses of the English Established Church.
The London School of Economics, according to a report published in
1940, was paying £30 per annum for each child under 13 years of age
and £60 per annum for each child between 13 and 23 years of age re­
ceiving a full-time education. The Association of University Teachers
has approved the extension of this experiment but without practical
results.
Family Allowances in Private Industry

Data from available sources indicate at least 35 industrial establish­
ments paying family allowances in Great Britain. Two of these firms
had been experimenting with these grants approximately 25 years. In
a few cases the employers had only recently started paying such bene­
fits. The following list of these companies shows the wide variety of
industries they cover: 52
« The Case for Family Allowances, b y Eleanor F . Rathbone, M . P. Hammondsworth, Middlesex,
England, 1940.
*2 Data are from Industrial Welfare and Personnel Management (London), July 1941 (p. 143), October 1941
(p. 214), December 1941 (p. 247); The Case for Family Allowances, b y Eleanor F. Rathbone, M . P., Ham­
mondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1940 (pp. 115-118); Central-Blatt and Social Justice (St. Louis, M o.),
March 1940 (p. 380); Social Jusitce Review (St. Louis, M o.), April 1940 (p. 19); and M onthly Labor Review,
April 1940 (p. 868).




28

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
Year scheme
was inau­
gurated

E. S. & A. Robinson, Ltd. (printers and manufacturers of paper and card­
board products), Bristol____________________________________________ 1917
Brittains, Ltd. (paper manufacturers), Cheddleton_____________________ 1917
J. Bibby & Sons, Ltd. (oil manufacturers), Liverpool____________________ 1923
John Thompson Engineering Co., Ltd., Wolverhampton_________________ 1926
Pilkington Bros. Ltd. (glass manufacturing), St. Helens_________________ 1938
Tootal, Broadhurst, Lee Co., Ltd. (cotton spinners and manufacturers),
Ltd., Manchester__________________________________________________ 1938
Maclean’s Ltd. (manufacturing chemists), Brentford____________________ 1938
Barlock Typewriter Co., Nottingham__________________________________ 1938
Rowntree & Co., Ltd., York__________________________________________ p)
Newton Mill, Ltd. (envelope makers and stationers), Hyde______ 1938
Bentail’s (department store), Kingston-on-Thames______________________ 1938
Cadbury Bros., Ltd. (cocoa and chocolate manufacturers), Bournville_____ 1939
N. Kilvert & Sons, Ltd. (refiners), Manchester_________________________ 1939
Midland Counties Dairy, Ltd., Birmingham____________________________ 0)
H. P. Bulmer & Co. (cider manufacturers), Hereford____________________ 1939
Robinson & Sons, Ltd. (manufacturers of surgical dressings), Chesterfield__ 1939
Clark, Son & Morland, Ltd., Glastonbury______________________________ 1939
H. Young & Co., Ltd., Nine Elms (steelworkers, structural engineers),
London___________________________________________________________ 1939
C. & J. Clark, Ltd., Street Somerset____________________________________ 1939
The Horsehay Co., Ltd. (bridge builders), Wellington, Salop____________ 1939
Power’s & Deane Ransomes, Ltd. (structural engineers), Bridge Steel­
works, London_____________________________________________________ 1939
Ford Motor Co., in Great Britain_____________________________________ 1940
William Brake, Ltd. (retail and wholesale merchants), Taunton__________ 1940
British Xylonite Co., Ltd_____________________________________________ P)
Midland Electric Co., Ltd____________________________________________ P)
C. H. Elkes & Sons, Ltd______________________________________________ P)
The Anglo-Swiss Screw Co., Ltd____________________ _________________ 1942
Tempered Spring Co., Sheffield________________________________________ p)
1 N ot reported.

The family allowance scheme of E. S. & A. Robinson is reported as
having been applied to 10 or more other firms engaged in paper making
and allied business.61
The Anglo-Swiss Screw Co.’s plan provides 5 shillings per child per
week for employees with three of more children under school age or
being given a full-time education at a recognized educational insti­
tution. The experiments in other firms vary considerably. For
example, several establishments grant allowances for the third and
each subsequent child, but Brittains, Ltd., and John Thompson Engi­
neering Co., Ltd., grant an allowance for each child, while the employ­
ees of Pilkington Bros., Ltd., are eligible for allowances only when they
have four or more children. Ordinarily, allowances are not paid for
children after they complete their fourteenth year. Some exceptions
are made for school attendance.
Allowance rates.— The weekly allowance per child in some establish­
ments is as low as Is., in others as high as 5s. The wage limit for re­
ceiving allowances also varies, for example, being only £ 5 per week
in the establishment of N . Kilvert & Sons,. Ltd., and as much as £400
per annum for the staff of Pilkington Bros., Ltd. Cadbury Bros., Ltd.,
grants a weekly supplement of 5s. for each child after the second,
regardless of the father’s salary. J. Bibby & Sons., Ltd., pay allow­
ances when the total income going into the home is below a certain
base which varies, however, with the number of children under 16
WThe Case for Family Allowances, b y Eleanor F. Rathbone, M . P., Hammondsworth, Middlesex,
England, 1940.




GREAT BRITAIN

29

years of age in the family. Brittains, Ltd., pays £10 a year for a child
until it leaves school, for members of the staff whose income is not over
£400 per annum.
Very few employees, however, actually benefit by the schemes
under which allowances are paid except when there are 3 or more
eligible children in the family. Some years ago J. Bibby & Sons, Ltd.,
had 1,900 married workers on their pay roll, and only 130 were eligible
for the grants, and E. S. & A. Eobinson, Ltd., with a staff of 250 boys
and men paid allowances for only 7 children.
Not only are the various family-allowance schemes in private in­
dustry of social and economic interest as offsetting the financial
hardships of large families in the very restricted fields in which they
have been tried out, but these experiments seem to be a prelude to
more constructive and comprehensive measures in behalf of those
with heavy family responsibilities and low incomes.
Attitude of Various Groups

The slowness of the movement for family allowances in Great
Britain seems out of proportion to the amount of discussion which has
arisen on this question for the last two decades. The Family Endow­
ment Society has kept the subject before the public for 20 years. The
war crisis has now brought the problem to the fore.
Churchmen.—The late Cardinal Hinsley, Archbishop of Westmin­
ster, expressed the opinion that family allowances are more necessary
for national welfare than old-age pensions. “ The children are vital,
the aged have done their day’s work. Both provisions are a call on the
Nation, but begin with the most needy.” He added that mothers
with big families take employment “ in order to eke out the family
budget. They are overworked and undernourished and as a conse­
quence the children suffer. So I consider that family allowances
should come earlier in our program for social improvement. For
moral reasons more than for economic reasons let us get on with this
job of providing the means of rearing good healthy families; so we shall
remove the reproach of great poverty side by side with wealth. From
the sound family will spring a strong people.” 63
Early in 1941 the Bishop of Winchester introduced a resolution into
the House of Lords, commending the institution of a national system
of family allowances. The proposal was rejected by the Government
on the ground of public expense.
In order that “ every child should find itself a member of a family
housed with decency and dignity so that it may grow up unspoiled by
underfeeding or overcrowding by dirty and drab surroundings or mo­
notony of environment,” the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested
family allowances—perhaps in the form of food and clothes coupons
with a money value—paid by the State to the mother of every child
except the first two. Wages should be sufficient for a family of four.54
The Archbishop of Birmingham is also an advocate of family
allowances.65
• Early in the fall of 1941 an all-denominational meeting sponsored by
the Catholic Young Men’s Society of Birmingham adopted a resolution
* Yorkshire (England) Post, quoted in Catholic Charities Review (Washington), January 1,1942; and The
Survey, Midm onthly (New Y ork), April, 1942.
M Canadian Congress Journal (Montreal), April 1942 (p. 37).
« Social Justice Review (St. Louis, M o.), February 1942 (p. 348).

555190°—43------5



30

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IX VARIOUS COUNTRIES

recommending family allowances “ as an overdue measure of social
justice to the most poorly paid section of the community.”
Later the salaries, wages, and labor committee of the City Council
of Birmingham recommended that the council grant half a Qrown per
week to the city’s employees for each child of school age, in order to
lessen the strain of family responsibilities; it was considered that such
allowances would be fairer than a general increase for both married and
unmarried.56
Employers.—Among employers advocating family allowances is B.
Seebohm Rowntree. In discussing the problem of wages in wartime in
Labor Management (the official organ of the Institute of Labor Man­
agement) of April 1941, he stated that “ it would be difficult to exagger­
ate the seriousness of the fact that more than half of the children of the
employed wage earners live in poverty for many years.’' 67 Holding
that it would be impracticable at present to pay every male adult
enough to support three children above the poverty line, he urged the
introduction of a family-allowance system at once. He estimated
that to pay every working-class child under 14 years would cost about
£63,000,000 per annum and £30,000,000 per annum if the first child
under that age were excluded.
L. J. Cadbury, managing director of Cadbury Bros., Ltd., suggested
payment of a flat weekly rate of 5s. per week per child for families with
incomes of £400 or of at least £250 per annum.58
Writers.—John Maynard Keynes the British economist, in his book
How to Pay for the War (London, 1940, p. 11), recommended among
other provisions the protection from any reductions in current con­
sumption those whose standard of living offers no adequate margin.
This, he stated, should be put into effect through an exempt minimum,
a sharply rising scale, and a family-allowance system. He estimated
the net cost of such a system at £100,000,000 per annum (p. 87).
Stephen King-Hall, a retired naval officer, in his book Total Victory
(London, 1941; p. 226) referring to the haphazard and chaotic manner
in which the British social services have come into existence, declared:
“ We must have a Ministry of Social Services and clean up thismess.
A minimum wage and family allowances are two essential reforms.,,
And again: “ Family allowances are a desirable peacetime arrangement;
they are needed in war in order to check indiscriminate wage increases.
Introduce them now.”
Another wartime publication of interest in connection with planning
for peace is The Case for Family Allowances, by Eleanor F. Rathbone, M. P.
Labor groups.—The report of the national executive committee
of the British Labor Party to the annual conference in 1941 included
an appendix memorandum on family allowances, prepared for use
in joint discussion with the general council of the Trades Union
Congress.69 The report reviewed the existing social services and
insurances which do much to soften the harshest effects of poverty,
but pointed out that they tend to distinguish between “ necessitous”
and “ nonnecessitous” children, whereas social services should apply
equally to all children, The memorandum recommends a system of
* Social Justice R eview (St. Louis, M o .), December 1941 (p. 276).
w Labor Management (London), June 1941 (p. 79).
» Idem , April 1940 (p. 62).
• Labor W om an (London), June 1941.




GREAT BRITAIN

31

children’s allowances, financed wholly by the Exchequer, and paying
a flat rate of 5s. per week for every child from birth until it leaves
school* This allowance would be substituted for the first 5s. of other
children’s allowances under public schemes, and the income-tax
allowances for children would be abolished.
The Interim Report of the Central Reconstruction Committee of
the British Labor Party, as given in the April 1942 number of the
International Labor Review (p. 421), recommends the raising of the
school-leaving age to 15 years immediately and to 16 within 3 years
after the end of the war, with maintenance allowances to be paid
to the parents of children retained in school, whenever this involves
hardship.
In March 1942, after years of opposition to family allowances,
the British Trades Union Congress, through its general council,
reversed its attitude and agreed.with the Labor Party on the need
for a national scheme of child endowment which should be a charge
on the State.60
Government officials.—Not long after the outbreak of the war a
memorandum was submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
on behalf of a group of members of Parliament, asking for the adoption
at once of family allowances.51 The members were of the opinion
that such a system, if of sufficient scope, would attain, without the
risk of a “ vicious spiral” and subsequent inflation, the following
wartime objectives:
1. The prevention of further malnutrition, overcrowding, and
other unsanitary conditions resulting from poverty accentuated
by high prices.
2. The prevention of discontent arising from (1) the belief that
the sacrifices called for by heavier taxation and restricted supplies
are not fairly shared between the rich and the poor, and (2) the wide
variations between the children’s allowances already being paid to
different groups—servicemen, evacuees, the jobless, widows, and
those on public assistance.
3. The prevention of a greater decline in the low birth rate and
the reduction of mortality and sickness rates.
4. The prevention of the overlapping between wages and un­
employment benefit and assistance, which results from taking into
consideration family responsibilities in the former but not in the
latter.
In May 1942, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to
Parliament a memorandum on family allowances in which he gave
estimates of the cost of such grants at 5 shillings per week per child
under 15 years, under several child-endowment proposals. These
estimates ranged from £18,000,000 to £132,000,000 per annum, ac­
cording to whether the scheme was noncontributory or contributory,
providing for all children under 15 years of age in the population
or excluding the first or the first two eligible children, taking or not
taking into account the family income, and deducting or not deducting
the savings to be made by discontinuance of certain allocations or
benefits already granted for children under insurance or pension
systems or other forms of social assistance. The Chancellor, however,
51 The Case for Family Allowances, b y Eleanor F. Rathbone, M . P., Hammondsworth, Middlesex,
England, 1940.
80 N ew Statesman and Nation (London), September 20,1941 (pp. 270, 271).




32

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS GOUNTREEB

stated that no deductions in the estimated costs were made because
of separation allowances for the armed forces, although it would
seem that this might constitute a very considerable saving in the
estimates for the children of civilians.61
The Beveridge Report

In December 1942, the Beveridge Report recommended a unified
system of social insurance for Great Britain, to provide its people
with greater economic security from birth to death. This report also
recommended children's allowances at an average of 8s. per week
per child up to the age of 15-16, regardless of family income. Such
grants would be payable out of taxation. The document declares:
No satisfactory scheme of social security can be devised except on the following
assumptions: (a) Children's allowances for children up to the age of 15 or if in full­
time education up to the age of 16; (b) comprehensive health and rehabilitation
services for prevention and cure of disease and restoration of capacity for work,
available to all members of the [community; (c) maintenance of employment, that
is to say, avoidance of mass unemployment.62

Sir William Beveridge the author of the plan urges the preparation
of the necessary detailed legislation before the war ends.63
Assurance has been given of labor’s support. At the meeting of
the nineteenth annual conference of British Trades Councils, held
at Nottingham on May 29, 1943, the Beveridge Report was one of
the chief subjects of discussion. A composite resolution was carried,
pledging the active backing of every trades council to the general
council m the additional measures which the Trades Union Congress
was taking to bring about the Government's acceptance of the vital
principles of the Beveridge Plan.64
HUNGARY

General System for Industry and Commerce

A new system of family allowances was instituted in Hungary under
an act promulgated on December 28, 1938, which became operative
January 1, 1939.65 The act is applicable to all mining, industrial, and
commercial enterprises which employ on an average over 20 workers.
Only manual workers are covered, but at the time the report was pre­
pared, the Government was making a study of the possibility of extend­
ing the act to small enterprises and to workers in general, when eco­
nomic conditions should warrant such action.
Beneficiaries and benefits.—Legitimate, adopted, or recognized ille­
gitimate children under 14 years of age, dependent on a manual worker,
are eligible for family allowances. These benefits are also granted to
grandparents for grandchildren maintained by them. A worker, how­
ever, is not entitled to these grants unless he has been employed for
at least 15 days in the month or for at least 3 days per week for a
4-week period.
The rate of allowance is set at 5 pengos per month, and the grants
are paid through equalization funds. Upon the death of a worker, the
« Great Britain. Family Allowances (Memorandum b y the Chancellor of the Exchequer). London, 1942.
•2 Bulletin of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, New York, May-June 1943.
•3 British Labor and the Beveridge Plan, b y Frederick J. Scheu, N ew York, 1943.
w Labor (Official Organ of the British Trades Union Congress, London), June 1943.
•5 Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), October 30,1939 (pp. 125-126).




HUNGARY

33

benefit is continued for 6 months, and in case of involuntary unemploy­
ment, sickness, accident, or military service, for 3 months.
At the close of the first quarter of 1939, the number of adults in
receipt of allowances totaled 125,009, the number of child benefi­
ciaries represented by such grants being 225,826. It was thought
probable that the total expenditure for these benefits per annum
will amount to approximately 14 million pengos.
Contributions.—Except for the expenses of administration of the
central fund, which the State meets, employers are responsible for
all expenditures connected with the payment of family allowances,
including the organization and administration of the various equali­
zation funds.
The contribution of the employer for each worker is to be fixed each
year by the competent minister, in order that the contribution not
only may offset the sum paid out in allowances but may be sufficient
to maintain a reserve. For the first year the contribution was 48 pen­
gos per male worker and 32 pengos per female worker. Organization
and administration costs are fixed at 5 percent of the income resulting
from the assessments levied upon employers.
Equalizationfunds.—Eight equalization funds have been established
for the various branches of mining, industry, and commerce, each fund
having country-wide jurisdiction. Operations are equalized at first
in the respective individual funds, and subsequently among the differ­
ent funds, through the central equalization fund. If any individual
equalization fund shows a profit after family allowances are paid,
this profit must be transferred to the central fund, which uses the
money to make up any deficit that may be shown by other equaliza­
tion funds.
Administration.—The central fund is under the general direction of
the Ministry of Industry and its operations are supervised by a com­
mittee on which both workers and employers have representation.
Family Allowances in Agriculture

The National Union of Agricultural Employers in the County of
Fejer instituted the first family-allowance system applicable to agri­
cultural workers in Hungary.®6 The members of the organization
contribute 5 pengos for each family of agricultural workers employed
by them. At the close of the year the total contributions are divided
among the families of workers in which there are children under 12
years of age. At the end of 1939 each large family received an allow­
ance of from 70 to 80 pengos.
The employers’ organization administers the fund on the basis of
information collected from its own members.
Allowances in Public Service

On May 1, 1941, a salary increase averaging 5.5 percent became
effective for Hungarian civil servants,67 who were also granted higher
family allowances. According to the International Labor Review of
October 1943, additional salary increases have been granted, and
civil servants and retired civil servants who have adopted a war
orphan will in future be entitled to the normal family allowance. War
« Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), March 11,1940.
67 Budapesti K ozlony, April 22 and M a y 15, 1941, quoted in International Labor Review (M ontreal),
August 1941 (p. 227).




34

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS 00UNTRIIE6

orphans whose father was a civil servant will be entitled to an allow­
ance one and a half times the normal rate, or twice the normal rate in
case of orphans who have lost both parents.
IT A L Y

The family-allowance system was made general in Italy by the
decree of June 17, 1937,68 which effected very important changes in the
internal organization of the previous system. This decree simplified
procedure, increased the allowances and the State’s subsidies, and
strengthened the administration in the sectors of industry and of
agriculture. A special fund was created for workers in each of four
groups—industry, commerce, banks and insurance establishments,
and agriculture. These four funds were administered by the National
Institute of Social Insurance. By a collective agreement of August 3,
1937, these allowances were extended to workers in the liberal pro­
fessions.
For some years following 1929, by virtue of collective agreements,
the total cost of allowances had been met by the employers in
industry, commerce, and agriculture; this had already been the case
for employers in the credit and insurance field. The purpose of the
1937 provisions would seem to be the avoidance in a difficult period
of a general increase in wages, while at the same time ameliorating
the situation of workers with family responsibilities. Furthermore,
it served to emphasize the fact that family allowances constituted an
integral part of the general wage policy of the Italian Government,
according to the Revue du Travail (Brussels) of March 1941.
On November 8, 1939, the Fascist Confederation of Industrialists
and Fascist Confederation of Industrial Workers signed an agreement,
effective the following month, which extended the right to family al­
lowances to the wife and parents dependent upon the working head of
the family. Consequently, in addition to working or employee family
heads having dependent children under 14 or 18 years of age, respec­
tively, married couples with no children or no dependent children are
now eligible for allowances. Moreover, unmarried workers with
dependent parents also benefit under this agreement.69 The new con­
tribution, including the 4.5 percent paid under the royal decree-law of
June 17, 1937, was fixed at 8 percent of the pay received. This entire
assessment is paid by the employer.
On December 1, 1939, an announcement was made by the Italian
Minister of Corporations that, in view of the workers’ needs and the
favorable position of the family-allowance fund, the family-allowance
rates would be raised for the children under 14 or 18 years of age of
wage earners and office employees, respectively, in industry and com­
merce, without increasing the contributions.70
According to an interconfederal agreement, effective December 1,
1939, ship’s officers and seamen were to receive allowances for wives
and dependent parents in addition to allowances already provided by
law for children. The extended allowances were to be paid by the em­
c* M onthly Labor Review (Washington), January 1938 (pp. 184-185), and M a y 1939 (pp. 1036-1037).
••Italy, Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale, Les assurances sociales, Supplement
de la revue “ Le assicurazioni sociali,” Rome, Novem ber-December 1939 (pp. 816-817); and British Ministry
of Labor Gazette, London, January (p. 15) and February (p. 48) 1940.
70 M onthly Labor R eview (Washington), M ay 1940.




ITALY

35

ployers, who also assumed the responsibility of paying the men's
share of the cost of the ordinary family allowances.70
A syndical agreement of December 25, 1939, effective January 1,
1940, signed by two Fascist confederations of commerce, regulated
certain aspects of labor relations involving the comfnercial classes. In
this agreement family allowances were extended to include the depend­
ent wife and parents of the family head and the contribution of 1 per­
cent in connection with the allowance (previously paid by the worker)
was to be met by the employer.70
Under the agricultural agreement, effective January 1, 1940, in­
creasing the allowances for children, grants were also provided for the
worker’s wife and his parents if they were living with him. The ex­
penses resulting from the higher allowances for children and the new
allowances for wives and parents under this agreement were to be off­
set by raising the total contribution from 0.50 lira to 1.50 lire for each
day's work of manual laborers and from 4% to 8 percent of the gross
compensation of nonmanual workers. This assessment was to be paid
entirely by the employers, including the contribution for which the
workers were legally responsible.70
The confederations of credit and insurance enterprises also in­
creased and extended family allowances under a special national col­
lective agreement, effective January 1, 1940, the contributions being
paid entirely by the employing establishments (formerly the workers
also were assessed).
By a law of August 6, 1940, the Italian Government announced the
discontinuance of its contribution to the family-allowance system and
gave legal confirmation to the previous abrogation of the workers'
obligation to contribute. It also extended the system to employees of
State administrations and public establishments insofar as they were
not already receiving family aid. The law stated that “ surplus re­
sources should be utilized for the financing of courses in vocational edu­
cation and for promoting the development of the family spirit.” 71
The law regulated family allowances in agriculture. Unly workers
registered on the list of agricultural workers had the right to family
allowances. These grants were made only on the basis of days of
actual work, the number of days not to exceed 26 per month for per­
manent workers. For workers not permanently employed, the allow­
ances were fixed for each Province in accordance with the presumed
number of days of work, regular, occasional, or exceptional. The rate
of allowance was fixed at 1.50 lire per day, but pending the establish­
ment of the total amount that could be paid, according to the con­
tributions, the rate of 0.50 lira was to be maintained and would be
increased gradually to 1.50 lire. Temporarily, the allowance was no
longer paid in its entirety.71
The family-allowance scheme for the agents of administrations and
public institutions was also regulated. In general, for this class of
workers their family situation was taken into account in their salaries.
They received either supplements for their wives and dependent chil­
dren or special cost-of-livmg bonuses. The law relates only to the few
agents wno havt not been receiving these benefits.71
70 M onthly Labor Review (Washington), M a y 1940.
ft Revue du Travail (Brussels, Belgium, Ministdre du Travail), March 1941.




36

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
Amount and Cost of Family Allowances 71

From the financial viewpoint, the present (before the invasion of
Italy by the United Nations) organization of family allowances is
based principally upon the creation of a single fund, which replaces
the four separate funds previously existing. This single fund was
operated by the National Fascist Institute of Social Insurance. It
assures reimbursement for the industrial branches where there is a
deficit. Separate accounts are kept for each of the four groups—
industry, commerce, credit and insurance, and agriculture—but a part
of the total resources is allocated to reserves with which to meet any
deficits. At the end of each fiscal period, each section establishes the
balance between total contributions and the amount of allowances
paid, including the expenses of administration and control. If there
is a deficit in one section it is covered by the surplus of other sections.
The financial contributions of the different groups have made
unnecessary any assistance by the State, such as was provided for
industry and commerce in the decree of June 17, 1937.
Funds for the payment of allowances come from employers* contri­
butions, based upon their gross pay rolls, as follows:
P ercen t o f
g ross p a y
ro ll

Industry___________________________________________________________ 8. 00
Commerce__________________ _______________________________________
6. 25
Liberal and artistic professions_______________________________________ 6. 25
Credit and insurance establishments:
Public banks___________________________________________________ _12. 75
Other banks, brokers’ offices, etc_____ ________________ ________ ___ 9. 25
8. 20
Insurance establishments______ ________ ______ ____________________
Insurance agents____________________________________________________ 9. 70
Agriculture:
Employees_____________________________________________________
8. 00
L ir e

Laborers______________________________________________ per dav__

1. 50

The percentages are so computed as to equalize in each branch
of industry the contributions and dues to cover the expenses of ad­
ministration and control and to assure a surplus sufficient for the
realization of the other objectives.
The amounts of the family allowances in 1940 were as follows:
T a b l e 1.—

Amounts of Family Allowances in Italy,1940
Amount of allowances for—

Employment group

1child
Agriculture:
Workers___________ ______ ______
per day__
Employees__________ ________ ___ ........... . d o . . . .
Industry:
orkers.
w eek..
....................................... ... Wper
Employees......................................... ...............d o . . . .
Commerce:
Workers............................................. per m on th ..
E m ployees................ ........................ ............. d o . . . .
Credit and insurance establishments:
Workers...................... ...................... per m on th ..
Employees in banks........................ ...............d o___
Liberal professions:
Workers.............................................................d o . . . .
E m ployees........................................................d o._.

L ir e

0.45

1.10

2 or 3 4 or more
children children
L ir e

L ir e

Each par­
ent

L ir e

L ir e

1.10

0.70
1.45

0.90
1.75

1.70

1.10

6.00

7.00

0.60

8.70

7.00
10.50

10.20

4.20
6.60

16.80
26.40

24.00
34.80

31.20
42.00

25.20
36.00

14.40
21.60

100.00

40.00

45.00
105.00

50.00
135.00

110.00

50.00

30.00
70.00

16.80
26.40

24.00
34.80

31.20
42.00

25.20
36.00

14.40
21.60

4.20
6.60

71Revue du Travail (Brussels, Belgium, Ministere du Travail), March 1941.



Wife

LATVIA

37

During the period from December 15, 1934, to December 31, 1939,
the total amount of allowances paid increased to the sum of approxi­
mately 2,500,000,000 lire, including 1,915,000,000 for industry,
144.000.000 lire for commerce, 268,000,000 lire for agriculture, and
40.000.000 lire for credit and insurance.
It was estimated that the cost of allowances in 1940 would reach
1.500.000.000 lire.
The Minister of Corporations ruled that Italian workers repatriated
from Germany as a result of sickness or accident might be granted
family allowances for the period for which they are paid benefits up to
a maximum of 3 months. Previously the regulations relating to the
payment of family allowances to Italian workers transferred to Germany
applied only to those recruited collectively. The new provision in­
cludes workers transferred by individual contracts.72
JAPAN78

In view of the increase in the cost of living, a system of family allow­
ances for low-paid workers was decided upon by the Japanese Cabinet
on February 16, 1940. Manual workers, salaried employees, and
public and municipal officials were included in the scheme.
In the manual-worker group, all workers whose earnings per month
are not over 70 yen and who have one or more dependent children
under 14 years of age were eligible for the allowances. The average
monthly rate was fixed at 2 yen per worker. Each establishment was
permitted to determine the conditions under which the allowances
were granted and to increase the amount according to the number of
the worker’s dependents. Local administrative authorities were urged
to advise employers to establish, as far as possible, systems of benefits
in kind “ involving distribution of the kinds of provisions most com­
monly consumed, as this form of benefit corresponds most closely
to the Government’s object in establishing family allowances.”
The number of manual workers in private enterprises and State
establishments who were scheduled to receive family allowances under
the reported scheme was estimated early in 1940 as 1,600,000.
LATVIA

During 1938-39, approximately 54,000 agricultural workers’
families with a total of 10,400 children received family allowances.
This involved considerable expenditure by the Government.
An amendment of May 4, 1939,74 to the law instituting family allow­
ances in agriculture provided that these allocations should be granted
to all children of agricultural workers up to 11 years of age. The pre­
vious law specified 10 years as the age limit and 5 children as the maxi­
mum number to receive allowances. In May 1939, the number of
children receiving allowances rose to 11,800, as compared with 10,400
during the preceding month. The increase was expected to be still
greater in subsequent months. Agricultural workers were also granted
6 lats per month for relatives for whose support they are responsible.
w International Labor Review (Montreal), M a y 1941 (p. 585).
73 Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), M a y 13,1940 (pp. 138-139).
w Law of M a y 9,1939, amending the law instituting a system of family allowances for agricultural workers
(Valdibas Vestnesis, N o. 103, M a y 8,1939).




38

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

A decree of the Ministry of Social Welfare, published on December
30,1939, provides that any urban worker with a dependent family who
took employment for at least 12 months as an agricultural worker,
with part of his wages being paid in kind, might borrow 150 to 300 lats
upon application to the Ministry of Social Welfare through the local
office. These interest-free loans were to be repavable after 5 vears.
After 12 months’ employment the workers were also to be entitled to
subsidies of 25 lats for each family member settled with them in the
countryside and supported by them. Under certain specified condi­
tions this subsidy could be increased by 50 lats.75
LEBANON

A Lebanese decree, issued on May 12, 1943, provided for very sub­
stantial wage and salary increases based o d salaries and wages paid on
December 31, 1939, as reported by the United States commercial
attach^ at Beirut, Lebanon. The decree also provided for family
allowances as follows:
Lebanese
pounds

Wife______________________________________________ _10.00
1 minor child______________________________________ _10. 00
2 minor children___________________________________ _17. 50
3 minor children___________________________________ 25. 00
4 minor children___________________________________ 30. 00
5 minor children___________________________________ 35. 00
MONACO

In December 1938 an interoccupational fund for family allowances
was constituted by approximately 200 employers in the Principality
of Monaco.76
NETHERLANDS 77

Even before the enactment of the December 23,1939, law, providing
for a general family-allowance scheme in the Netherlands, family allow­
ances were quite common. Such grants were made to Government
officials and employees and to school teachers, and also, by private
arrangement or collective agreements, to some workers in private in­
dustry.78 In 1936 the total number of persons receiving these alloca­
tions was estimated at 300,000.
The act of December 23, 1939, makes it compulsory for every em­
ployer having one or more wage earners on his pay roll to become a
member of a family-allowance fund. Every wage earner employed by
an enterprise or by a community is eligible for a family allowance for
each child under 15 years of age, beginning with the third. Exception
is made in the case of those wage earners who have “ advantages at least
equivalent to those provided by the act under special recognized
family-allowance schemes set up by a community, the Netherlands
Railway Co., or other undertakings.”
Benefits.—The allowance varies according to the wage, the minimum
being 10 cents a day for workers earning 100 florins or less per month,
75 Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), A p ril8,1940 (p. 38).
76 International Labor Office, ILO Year-Book, 1938-39 (Montreal, 1939), p. 227.
77 Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), M a y 13,1940.
78 According to a report b y the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomsten in
Nederland op 1 Juni 1939, published in 1940). family allowances were provided in 204 agreements covering 27
percent of the workers. Among the industries in specified localities m which these benefits were paid were
the leather, shoe, textile, woolen, and artificial-silk industries, the baking industry, the wholesale grocery
trade, slaughtering, cigar manufacturing, bulb growing, agriculture, horticulture, and gardening.




NEW ZEALAND

39

24 florins or less per week, or 4 florins or less per day, and the maximum
being 25 cents per day for workers earning over 200 florins per month,
48 florins per week, or 8 florins per day. Under section 73 of the act.
the family allowance received by a wage earner is considered a part
of his wages.
Financial provisions.—Family allowances and their administration
are to be financed entirely by the employers. Their contributions are
fixed each year for the following 12 months, on the basis of, and in
proportion to, each employer's total wage bill. It is estimated that
the allowances represent approximately 1 percent of the combined
wages paid, or approximately 18 million florins per annum.
Family-allowance and equalization funds.—Family-allowance funds,
according to provisions of the law, may be organized (1)i by industrial
councils (joint advisory bodies established under a special act); (2) by
occupational associations, recognized under the Sickness Insurance Act
and having a managing committee with equal numbers of employers
and workers. When, however, an industrial council has been con­
stituted for a specified industry or branch of industry, any other fund
formed by a recognized occupational association is to discontinue its
functions, which will thereafter be performed only by the industrial
council's fund. The Minister responsible for the enforcement of the
act must approve any exception to this rule. Employers who are not
members of either an allowance fund established by a works council or
one formed by a recognized occupational association will be affiliated
automatically with the National Family Allowance Fund.
The act establishes a family-allowance equalization fund, separately
administered by the State Insurance Bank, which already has the
responsibility of administering accident, invalidity, and old-age in­
surance. At the close of the fiscal year, the family-allowance funds
in which the contributions received are greater than the amount of the
allowances granted will transfer the available surplus to the National
Family Allowance Equalization Fund, which in turn will make up the
deficit of those family-allowance funds “ which have received contri­
butions lower in amount than that of the allowances paid." When the
resources of the National Equalization Fund are inadequate, it may
borrow (paying interest) from the Invalidity and Old-Age Fund.
Supervision and penalties.—The Supervisory College provided for
under section 20 of the Sickness Insurance Act is entrusted with the
supervision and enforcement of the Family Allowance Act.
Persons included under section 141 of the Penal Code, and State and
communal police officers, members of the State Insurance Bank's
board of directors, chairmen of labor councils, etc., are charged with
the duty of seeing that the act is applied and of inquiring into any in­
fringements, for which various penalties are imposed.
Details of application are to be set forth in a number of public ad­
ministrative regulations. Similar provisions, based on the principle of
reciprocity in the legislation of other national governments, may
make it possible for wage earners not domiciled in the Netherlands to
benefit under family-allowance schemes.
NEW ZEALAND

Weekly grants under the New Zealand Family Allowances Act of
1926 were at the rate of 2s. per child under 15 years of age, beginning




40

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

with the third child, with a family-income limit of £4 per week. The
Social Security Act of 1938, effective April 1,1939, increased the allow­
ance rate to 4s. per week per child under 16 years, beginning with the
third, and raised the weekly family-income limit to £5; an amendment
in 1940 made the 4s. benefit payable for each child beginning with the
second.
Under this legislation the number of children receiving family
allowances and the cost of these benefits have increased enormously,
as is indicated by the accompanying statement showing family allow­
ances for the 3 years ending March 31, 1941:79
Year ending March 31—
1941_________________________
1940_________________________
1939_________________________

Nvmber of
benefits

16,626
11,053
5, 606

Total payments
made

£411,811
252,562
84, 436

The Finance Act of New Zealand, effective September 1, 1941, pro­
vided that a family allowance be payable for the first child. The
rate, however, was left at 4s. per child and adjusted so that the average
weekly income of the parents and children under 16 years of age, ex­
clusive of the allowance, would not exceed £5.80
The commissioners may also grant allowances for a child over 16
years of age if wholly incapacitated physically or mentally and unable
to earn a living.81
In accordance with an amendment to the New Zealand Social Security
Act (Serial No. 1942/145), family allowances were increased 50
percent, the weekly benefit for each child under 16 years of age being
raised from 4s. to 6s. The limit of the family weekly maximum
income, exclusive of allowances, has been raised from £5 to £5 5s.
NICARAGUA

Article 82 of the 1939 constitution of Nicaragua provides that the
State shall attempt to secure special aid for large families.82
NORWAY

In connection with a 1938 report to the Ministry of Social Affairs on
the feasibility of family allowances, a general system was recommended.
A draft bill was submitted, providing for a State system, supported by
taxation.83 A minority report, by one member of the committee, pro­
posed a new system of remuneration which would provide the payment
of wages proportionate to the value of the work and to the worker’s
family responsibilities, regardless of sex. The report also suggested
the creation of an insurance fund for family allowances, to be attached
to one of the present social-insurance institutions, to which all wage
earners with annual income of not less than 2,500 nor more than 15,000
kroner would be required to belong and to pay contributions averag­
ing 8-10 percent of their wages. Every year the fund would fix for
each of eight wage classes the amount of the monthly or quarterly fam­
ily allowances payable out of the fund so collected, after taking the
7* New Zealand Social Security Department, Annual reports for the years ending March 31,1940 (p. 3),
and March 31.1941 (p. 2).
w International Labor Review (Montreal), Novem ber 1941 (p. 591). and Official Year-Book (N ew Zealand,
Census and Statistics Department), 1941 (p. 5S0).
si Social Security Bulletin (Washington), M a y 1939 (p. 7).
w Nicaragua, Constitution Politica y ley^s constitutivas. Managua, D. N . (Nicaragua, 1939), p. 30.
« International Labor Review (Montreal). July 1939 (pp. 55-63).




PALESTINE

41

cost of administration into account. Allowances would be due to mem­
bers of the fund in respect of each child under 15 years of age for which
they are responsible. The members’ contributions would thus restore
to the community the so-called ‘family increment’ in wages which is
wrongly paid to persons who have no children, and the amount would
be shared in each wage class among the wage earners with family
responsibilities. Both the contribution and the allowance would be
proportionate to the basic wage in each class.”
Subsequently, the Minister of Social Welfare requested various
national associations likely to be interested in the subject of inquiry
to submit their views. After making criticisms of the proposals of
both the majority and minority of the committee, certain organizations
presented entirely different recommendations for the relief of large
families, especially measures for relief in kind (with additional cash
grants in some cases) along the lines advocated by the Swedish Popu­
lation Commission which had concluded its survey at the close of 1938.84
Some of the replies of the Norwegian associations suggested that a new
committee be created to reconsider the problem in the light of the
opinions expressed by the consultants.
P A L E S T IN E

Allowances were being paid to Government employees upon all
basic salaries up to 16 Palestine pounds per month, according to a
report of the Government W7age Committee published in 1943. The
amounts of the allowances paid were as follows:
Palestine
pounds

Wife____________________________ _______ ______________ 1. 500
First and second child, each_____________________________ . 500
Third and subsequent children, each_____________________ . 250

As an example of schemes established by private employers, the
scale below for two important banks, effective January 1, 1943, was
also presented in the above-mentioned report.
Per year
( Palestine

Cost-of-living allowance to bank officers—
pounds)
Irrespective of salary if unmarried_______________________________
40
If married_____________________________________________________
90
For the first child_______________________________________________
20
For the second and third child, each_____________________________
10
The maximum allowance________________________________________
130
Allowances payable on salaries up to_____________________________ 1, 000
Cost-of-living allowance to bank servants, irrespective of salary—
Unmarried_____________________________________________________
40
If married_____________________________________________________
60
First, second, and third child, each_______________________________
8
Maximum total allowance_______________________________________
84
Proposed Family-Allowance Scheme

The family-allowance principle embodied in a number of provisions
for salaried workers makes it possible for the total amount paid in
cost-of-living allowances to be allocated in such a way as to meet
budget requirements where they are heaviest. According to the
Government Wage Committee’s report, the restoration of the pur­
chasing power of salaried workers was considered impracticable except
for those in the lower-income brackets.
94 International Labor Review (Montreal), June 1939.




42

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

The Committee held that family-allowance schemes are practicable
if the employers’ competitive position is not at the time menaced by
additional labor costs and employment may reasonably be considered
permanent.
However, a family-allowance scheme makes it imperative for the
employer to investigate the family responsibilities of the worker, and
such investigation is impracticable when the personnel is large and the
turnover is heavy.
The Committee stated that—
The above considerations would seem to exclude the whole of industry, as
regards both monthly and daily paid employees, from a family-allowance scheme.
They would also exclude employment by the armed forces and temporary employ­
ment by the Government. We have been impressed with the difficulty pointed
out by the general manager of the Palestine Railways of paying a large labor
force according to family responsibilities.

In addition, therefore, to the industrial workers’ scheme of cost-ofliving allowances, the Wage Committee recommended another scheme
embodying the family-allowance principle. It is proposed under this
scheme to use 10 Palestine pounds per month as the salary upon which
the maximum allowance is to be based, with the following supplements:
Percent of rise in

Supplement to allowance for—
cost-of-living index
Individual employee______________________________ 50
Wife____________________________________________
10
Children under 15 years of age:
First and second, each________________________ 10
Third and fourth, each_______________________
5

The cost-of-living allowance for the individual man should be
raised in proportion to his basic salary up to 10 Palestine pounds, but
family allowances should always be based on a salary of 10 Palestine
pounds, irrespective of the salary of the head of the household. The
cost-of-living allowance for the individual employee should be paid
on all basic salaries over 10 and up to 32 Palestine pounds. “ On
higher salaries it should be paid only to such an extent that the em­
ployee should not receive less in total emoluments than if his salary
had been 32 Palestine pounds.”
The Committee considers the above family-allowance plan as
applicable to Government and possibly municipal employees.
With reference to the cost-of-living index for the determination of
allowance rates, the Committee suggests that the Government Statis­
tician be requested to compile a special monthly index to be designated
the Wage Committee Index.
PERU

The President of Peru on taking office on December 9, 1939, in­
cluded in his social and economic program the establishment of a
minimum wage and family allowances.85
POLAND

For the Polish territory seized by Germany, rules were issued by the
German Labor Trustee for Public Services on March 3, 1941. These
regulations deprived all Polish workers in such services of the right to
certain allowances (including children’s allowances) ordinarily ac­
u Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), March 4,1940 (p. 214).




PORTUGAL

43

corded to German workers. The decree further stated that Polish
workers could claim the right to present their cases to the courts.86
PORTUGAL

A family-allowance scheme was introduced by the Government by
legislative decree No. 32192 of August 13, 1942, in accordance with
the principles set forth in articles 11 and 15 of the Portuguese Consti­
tution of March 19, 1933.87
This decree is applicable to well-behaved family wage earners of
Portuguese nationality working for an employer in industry, com­
merce, or the liberal professions or corporative bodies or organizations
for economic coordination, provided such wage earners are domiciled
in Portugal. Brazilian and Spanish workers and nationals of other
countries which grant reciprocal treatment to Portuguese wage earn­
ers are also covered. Agricultural workers living in their employer's
household and Government employees and officials are at present not
eligible for family allowances.
The term “ family breadwinners” includes a married worker with a
legitimate family which lives with him or is under his control; an
unmarried, widowed, divorced, or separated worker who has depend­
ents; a married woman with a husband who is an invalid, involun­
tarily out of work or legally prevented from maintaining his family;
and the parents of a single woman.
Dependents include those whose individual means are not sufficient
to maintain them and who rely for their support, clothing, and educa­
tion on the family breadwinner. Among such dependents are legiti­
mate or legitimated children up to 14 years of age of both the worker
or his wife, and his grandchildren and ascendants if they are not in
gainful employment and live within the national frontiers.
Administration and Financing

The legislative decree of August 13, 1942, also set up a National Fund attached
to the National Labor and Welfare Institute to balance the receipts and expenditure
of the regional funds, and to assist them in carrying out their functions.
This fund is financed by such part of the balances held by the funds as may be
determined by the National Labor and Welfare Institute; a specified percentage of
the balances held by the corporative bodies and economic coordination organiza­
tions; a contribution from the Unemployment Fund; half the 50-percent increase
on normal rates paid for night work, except where performed by regular shifts,
and overtime, and of the increase of 100 percent paid for work on Sundays and
holidays, in accordance with the provisions of decree No. 24402 of August 24,
1934, regulating hours of work in industrial and commercial establishments, these
payments being made by the undertakings; fines imposed for breach of the pro­
visions of the legislative decree or of the rules of the funds; gifts from public or
private institutions; interest on investments; and all other revenue, gifts, or
grants authorized by the law.
The National Family Allowances Fund is managed by a committee which in­
cludes the secretary of the National Labor and Welfare Institute as chairman and
representatives of the Ministries of the Interior, Finance, Public Works and Com­
munications, and National Economy.
The decree lays down penalties for breaches of its provisions and prescribes that
existing institutions which granted family allowances must be incorporated in the
new system within 60 days of the publication of the decree.
86 Reichsgesetzblatt (Berlin), April 3,1941, quoted in International Labor Review (Montreal), Novem ber
1941 (p. 591).
87 International Labor Review (Montreal), March 1943 (pp. 393-394).




44

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Local family-allowance funds.—Family-allowance funds collect the
moneys for the system and distribute them to the allocatees. These
funds are legally constituted bodies and wherever possible are estab­
lished on a regional basis upon the request of the interested workers or
representative organizations or upon the initiative of the National
Labor and Welfare Institute. Several industries or occupations may be
covered by a fund, but it may not begin operations until its rules
have the approval of the Under-Secretary of State for Corporations
and Social Welfare. The functions of family-allowance funds may
also be performed by pension and welfare funds, corporative bodies,
and groups of enterprises.
It is compulsory for every worker and every establishment to be­
come a member of a family-allowance fund as soon as one has been
established for the occupation or industry.
The management of each fund is in the hands of a committee
of three members. The chairman is nominated by the Under-Secretary
of State for Corporations and Social Welfare; the other two members
are elected, one by the employers and the other by the workers.
Each fund is obliged to maintain a reserve fund into which it must
place 25 percent of its yearly balance up to a maximum of 10 percent
of the value of allowances granted during the preceding 12 months.
The reserves must consist of cash, bonds issued or backed by the
Government, and buildings for the housing of the fund or the promo­
tion of its objectives.
Contributions

The finances of the funds are furnished through contributions from
both the workers and employers, payments from the National Family
Allowances Fund, interest and other revenue, grants, gifts, and
legacies.
Each fund may choose whether its member establishments shall base
their contributions on the total wages paid or on the number of their
workers and salaried employees; and the workers’ contributions are
either a percentage on wages or a flat rate for each wage group.
Employees' contributions are deducted from their pay.
An order issued by the Under-Secretary for Corporations and Social
Welfare explained that the extension of normal working hours recom­
mended for economic reasons would necessitate higher basic rates of
wages. A legislative decree of August 13, 1942 (No. 32193), stipulated
that from September 1, 1942, the employer should retain one-half of
such higher rates for overtime and pay it into the National Family
Allowances Fund within the first 8 days of the next month.
Benefits

The amount of the allowance is computed on the number of days
worked, in accordance with the rates published in a schedule .to the
decree. Consideration is given to the requirements of different occu­
pations and to the living conditions of the beneficiaries. The scales
may be revised at the discretion of the Under-Secretary for Corpora­
tions and Social Welfare.
Furthermore, a fund may also provide marriage, birth, and nursing
bonuses, and vouchers for meals and clothing up to 10 percent of its
receipts.



SPAIN

45

The workers are eligible for allowances as long as they are receiving
wages or salaries. Thus, allowances are payable in case of sickness,
accident, maternity leave, military service, etc. However, no double
allowances are granted.
RUMANIA

It was reported on April 1, 1943, that Rumanian factories must pay
workers a 500-lei allowance each month for every child they have
under 14 years of age. It is further alleged that workers’ children
physically unfit or who attend school would entitle their parents to
the same allotment until the children reach the age of 16.88
SOVIET UNION

The provisional results of the 1933-37 Five-Year Plan of the Soviet
Union and the leading principles of the 1938-42 Five-Year Plan were
reported at the Eighteenth Congress of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, which met in Moscow in March 1939. The latter plan
provided for a notable increase in various social services, among
which were allowances to mothers with large families.89
SPAIN

General System

A July 19, 1938, decree of the Franco Government instituted a com­
pulsory centralized system of family allowances, to which the Govern­
ment, employers, and wage and salaried workers were to contribute.
These contributions were to be fixed by administrative regulation.
The Institute of Social Insurance was required to organize a national
fund to cover all employers and their workers, except the person­
nel of the State, Provincial, and municipal administrations, certain
other public bodies, and cities of less than 20,000 residents; the
excepted administrations may affiliate voluntarily with the national
fund.
The resources of the national fund, were to be made up of a grant
of 5 million pesetas from the State, the contributions of employers,
and a 10-percent tax on such part of dividends as exceeds 6 percent.
System for Agriculture

Application of the compulsory family-allowanee system to agri­
culture proved to be so difficult that it became necessary to issue
special regulations for agriculture. These were covered in an act of
September 1, 1939, regulations dated October 6, 1939, and an order of
January 17, 1940. A summary of the principal provisions thereof is
given below.90
The right of family allowances is extended to agricultural workers
employed by another person, and also to proprietors, cultivators,
leaseholders, share farmers, etc., who are directly engaged in farming
without the aid of permanent workers or domestic assistants. The
names of the persons entitled to family allowances must be entered in
a local register of such persons, which must be kept up to date by the
family-allowanee committee for the locality.
88 Report from American Consulate General, Istanbul. Turkey, M a y 31,1943.
m International Labor Review (Montreal), February 1940 (p. 199).
w Industrial and Labor Information (M ontreal), April 29, 1940.




46

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

Employers must bear the entire cost of financing the allowances,
their contributions being based in part on the assessed land value and
in part on their wage bill. In case of land held on lease or cultivated
on shares, landlords may require their leaseholders or tenants to refund
the contributions paid. The allowance is based on a monthly sched­
ule, regardless of the number of days the recipient has been employed.
Because of the inability of the local committees to prepare the regis­
ters of eligibles within the time fixed, and the failure of the minister
to fix the amount to be contributed by employers, the coming into
operation of the special family-allowance system in agriculture was
suspended indefinitely.
In the meantime agricultural workers and stock raisers were still
included in the general provisions for family allowances in the legisla­
tion of 1938, ana these benefits were paid only to those workers whose
names appeared on the employers’ lists. The workers also continued
to share in the contributions to the family-allowance fund. The
employers make such payments on the basis of 6 percent of the wage,
1 percent representing the contribution of the workers.
DECREE OF FEBRUARY 22, 1941

A decree of February 22, 1941, doubled the allowance rates and
provided marriage loans and prizes. The rates were as follows:91
B a sed , o n
m o n th ly w a g e

Allowance on account of—
(:p e s e t a s )
30
2 children_________________ _________
3 children_________________ _________ ‘ 45
4 children_________________ _________
60
5 children_________________ _________
80
6 children. ________________________ 100
7 children _
__ __ _
_________ 120
8 children, ________ _
____
_ 150
9 children__________________________ 180
10 children. _ _____________ _________ 210
11 children_________________ _________ 250
12 children__________________________ 290

B ased on
d a i ly w a g e
(p eseta s)

1. 20
1. 80
2. 40
3. 20
4. 00
4. 80
6. 00
7. 20
8. 40
10.00
11. 60

The monthly allowance was raised by an additional 50 pesetas
for each child after the twelfth, and the daily allowance was raised
in the same proportion. Each family was to be paid a lump sum
equal to 50 percent of the total allowances received from the date
upon which the scheme was introduced up to March 31, 1941.
Under the system of marriage loans, a couple may borrow 2,500
pesetas, repayable, without interest, at 1 percent per month. The
loan may be 5,000 pesetas if an insured woman worker gives up her
employment and refrains from entering employment as long as her
husband is employed or capable of work.
The marriage loan is repayable without interest at 1 percent per
month. The amount to be returned is reduced at the birth of each
child. Annual provincial prizes totaling 1,000 pesetas and a national
prize of 5,000 pesetas are to be granted to the families “ which have
had the largest number of children, and prizes to the same amount
to the families which have the largest number of living children.”
By a decree of November 10, 1942, family allowances were provided
for home workers who had been provisionally excluded from these
benefits under the decree of October 20, 1938.
MInternational Labor Review (Montreal), M a y 1941.




SWITZERLAND

47

Under the new decree, home workers and persons in a similar posi­
tion and their employers are compulsorily included in the familyallowance system.
Under an act of February 10, 1943, the Spanish Government pre­
scribed rules for the application of compulsory family-allowance pro­
visions in rural areas.91a
SW ED EN

The final report of the Swedish Population Commission appointed
in 1935 was dated December 18, 1938. This report emphasized that a
part of the economic responsibility of bringing up children must be
transferred from the family to the community.92 Indeed, the major
tenet of the commission was the equal distribution of the maintenance
costs of children. “ It should not be possible for those who have no
children to avoid contributing to the necessary investment in the
future generation.” The commission, however, preferred allowances
in kind rather than cash benefits for large families, following “ the
pattern of a cooperative economy in which large schemes for pro­
viding free goods and services for children are sustained by the com­
munity on the grounds of rational organization, expediency, and social
equity.”
The commission’s four main reasons for favoring assistance in kind
were (1) better guarantees that the children will actually receive the
benefits; (2) the direct economic advantages obtainable through mass
administration of some types of consumption; (3) the possible improve­
ment of consumption habits; and (4) the practically prohibitive cost of
adequate cash allowances for children. However, exceptions might be
permitted; as for example, in the case of incidental expenses at child­
birth, also in the matter of indirect cash equalization through tax
exemptions.
In the opinion of the commission, benefits should be available for
all children regardless of social class; the middle-class family as well as
the working-class family must have this aid. “ No social stigma should
be attached to those who need assistance from the community in con­
tributing to its continued existence.”
S W IT Z E R L A N D

On March 10, 1939, a wage settlement between the Swiss Govern­
ment and the Swiss Federal Alliance of Public Servants (which in­
cludes the Swiss Railwaymen’s Union) provided for a marriage allow­
ance to be granted in such a way that two increments in wages would
be given, with adjustments when increments would otherwise be due,
or alternatively a lump-sum allowance of 1 month’s wages, subject to a
maximum of 500 francs. The allowance for children was raised from
120 to 130 francs.93
A meeting of firms in the Swiss watch industry in 1939 decided to
recommend a system of family allowances. The organization of an
equalization fund was accepted as a necessary step toward realization
of the plan; the employers would make contributions to the equaliza­
tion fund, based on a percentage of wages and salaries paid. The meet­
ing instructed the Swiss Chamber of the Watch Industry to bring
w* International Labor Review (Montreal), August 1943 (p. 263).
92 Idem, June 1939.
® International Transportworkers Federation (Amsterdam). Press report N o. 7, M arch 27, 1939.




48

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

about affiliation of all employers’ associations and groups with the
fund.94
Family allowances constituted one of the major subjects of discussion
at the annual conference of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, which
met at Berne, May 16, 1941.95 The resolution finally adopted de­
clared that the Swiss trade-unions had always favored provisions for
family protection, but experience had indicated that family allowances
generally tended to be a drag on wages and made it more difficult to
adjust wages to increases in the cost of living. As a consequence,
family allowances could not be considered as desirable for countering
the declining birth rate or insuring the permanent welfare of large fami­
lies. The threat of war and economic insecurity and its consequences
“ were much more powerful influences than the measures proposed to
counteract the fall in the birth rate.” The conference contended that
larger families should be granted various benefits, such as tax abate­
ments, and that single workers should be paid a wage which would
make it possible for them to establish homes for themselves while they
were still young.
The program adopted February 11, 1939, by the Committee of
Management of the Federation of Swiss Associations of Salaried Em­
ployees included a demand for “ the adaptation of salaries to the
employee’s qualifications, length of service, age, and family responsi­
bilities and to the cost of living.” 96 In Berne, Basel, and Zurich in 1940
and 1941 family responsibilities were to some extent taken into account
in wage rates for certain occupations.97
TURKEY

The Public Health Act of Turkey gives an important place to the
assistance of large families, with the objective of reducing infant mort­
ality but with the further purpose of encouraging mothers and giving
help to large families. In accordance with this law needy families
with more than six children receive cash allowances from the Govern­
ment; families in easy circumstances receive medals instead of money.98
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

The Prime Minister of South Africa in reviewing the economic
and social achievements of the Government since 1939, and outlining
plans for post-war reconstruction, before the annual congress of the
United Party of the Union of South Africa, stated that “ as soon as
finances allow, a minimum standard wage, providing for family allow­
ances, will be introduced.” 99
UNITED STATES

The idea of family allowances is in embryo in the United States.
However, the family-allowance principle is recognized in State and
Federal income-tax laws by exemptions for dependents. Family re­
w Social Justice Review (St. Louis), April 1942 (p. 19); also source in footnote 93.
International Labor Review (Montreal), September 1941 (p. 348).
w Industrial and Labor Information (Montreal), April 24, 1939 (p. 641).
w La Vie Economique, (Berne, Switzerland, Federal Department of Public E conom y), 1941 (pp. 296-301).
•• La sante publique et 1’assistance sociale en Turquie. (Matbuat umum Miidiirliigii, Ankara, Turkey),
1941 (p. 95).
International Labor Review (M ontreal), March 1942 (p. 302)




UNITED STATES

49

sponsibilities have also been taken into consideration in the compensa­
tion of officers in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and
in some cases in the Public Health Service. For example, Army offi­
cers from the rank of second lieutenant to that of brigadier general
are entitled to different amounts of subsistence and rent, according to
whether or not they have dependents.1 Separation allowances for
the dependents of mobilized men were paid during the last war and
in the present war.
The Salvation Army makes family-allowance grants to its officers.
The principle of the basic wage and dependency allotments have been
used as a guide in Bennington College (Bennington, Vt.) in fixing
salaries and determining increases in pay.
Family Allowances for Public School Teachers 2

The successful demands of women teachers for equal pay for equal
work and the claims of male teachers who are heads of families for
adequate support of their dependents have in recent years brought to
the front the question of the so-called “ social wage” in the formation
of teachers’ salary schedules.
While tha very vigorous controversies on the subject stretch over a
considerable period, they have a close tie-up with the recent hearings
on separation allowances for married men in the armed forces and with
the wartime rise in the cost of living, which affects so acutely wage
earners who have family responsibilities.
Family allowances or closely allied salary differentials for married
public school teachers were provided in 75 communities of from 2,504
to 149,554 in population, according to a study made in 1941 by
the National Education Association involving the examination of the
salary schedules of 1,315 city public-school systems.2®
Although the amounts of the allowances do not cover the full main­
tenance of dependents, these grants suggest a practical way of secur­
ing a more adequate standard of living for the families of married
educators. Some phases of the problem involved in providing for the
so-called “ family wage” are indicated in the conflicting viewpoints on
the question at issue.
Since 1914 the National Education Association has expressed itself
officially in favor of the equal-pay principal, namely, that teachers of
equivalent preparation, experience, and teaching load should receive
equal pay regardless of sex. In 10 States the law forbids salary dis­
crimination against women teachers. However, women teachers’
salaries continue to be below those of men. According to the report
from which the data in this section were taken, this situation may be
explained partly by the failure of both educators and laymen to study
the changing conditions which have outmoded the traditional prac­
tice of sex discrimination and partly by “ the belief that the law of
supply and demand requires the payment of higher salaries to men.”
However, the proportion of male teachers in the United States has
been constantly increasing since 1919-20. In that year men consti­
1A personnel program for the Federal Civil Service. Washington (United States House of Representa­
tives, H . Doc. 773), 1931 (p. 69). (Referred to in Report of the Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees in the Greenwich School System, b y Willard S. Elsbree.)
2 National Education Association, Report of the Committee on Salaries, for presentation to the repre­
sentative assembly at Milwaukee, June 30-July 4,1940.
2a Family allowances for public school teachers and differentials for married men in 1940-41. Washington,
National Education Association, September 1941. (Processed.) In some cases the latest available sched­
ules were for earlier years.




50

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

tuted 14.1 percent of the teachers; in 1937-38 the proportion had risen
to 21.1 percent, and this in spite of an important gain in the extension
of the principle of equal paj for equal work.3
Another and graver consideration relative to salary discrimination,
the report declares, is the heavier economic burden of married men.
The seeming justice of a salary differential for married men has in­
fluenced numerous boards of education to adopt this practice and
often extend it to include all men, without reference to marital status.
The basis for such extension has never been fully explained. At times
it is argued that the scale is devised to “ make marriage attractive and
possible for all men teachers and to offer unmarried men an opportun­
ity for reasonable savings in anticipation of the future costs of main­
taining homes.” Those who are not in favor of higher salaries for men
have emphasized that the average dependency load of women teach­
ers is considerable and that single men teachers should not be selected
for preferential treatment. Others hold that the family responsibili­
ties of the individual teacher should have no place in the establishment of
salary schedules; that rewards should be linked up with the kind of
service performed, should be sufficient to attract persons with the
requisite qualifications, and should include provisions for the average
family responsibilities of all teachers rather than for those of
individuals.
Despite the objections noted above, the public-school systems in
various localities are, as already stated, now making provisions for
the extra financial burdens of married men or heads of families. These
experiments, the National Education Association’s Committee on
Salaries suggests, afford an opportunity for study and research in the
quest for a better solution of the problem.
The accompanying table, based on the findings of the National
Education Association’s inquiry, shows that 75 public-school systems
in 1940-41 provided additional remuneration for married male teach­
ers. The annual salary differentials for married men range from the
lowest minimum of $50 in Elgin, 111., to the maximum of $1,000 in
Wellesley, Mass. Of the seven cities in which specific grants are made
for a wife, four—Springfield, Mass., Superior, Wis., Lead, S. Dak.,
and Gooding, Idaho—provided an annual differential of $100. Three
cities—Palmerton, Pa., Cheyenne, Wyo., and Garden City, N. Y .—
paid respectively, $50, $120, and $300. In nine cities in which specific
grants were made for dependent children, the yearly allowance for a
child ranged from $10 in Palmerton to $120 in Cheyenne, the latter
grant being for the first child if there are only child dependents. In
Cheyenne the school board may approve allowances for dependents
other than wives and children.
In Rock Island and Superior, a child must be under 21 years of age
to receive an allowance; in Palmerton and Garden City, under 18.
A woman teacher may also receive a differential for dependents, in
Emporia and Lawrence, Kans., if she is the head of a family; in Grand
Island, Nebr., Garden City, N. Y., and Ely, Minn., if she is a widow;
in Beloit, Wis., and Washington County (including St. George), Utah,
if she has dependents, and m East Grand Rapids, Mich., if she has
financial responsibilities equivalent to those of men.
8 In 1939-40 only 12 of the 87 cities in the United States having over 100,000 population made any distinction
in the salaries established b y schedule for m en and women teachers.




UNITED STATES

51

In 25 cities single men are reported as receiving a differential which,
however, in practically all cases, is considerably below that for married
men. For example, in Elgin the maximum differential for single men is
$250 compared with $500 for married men; in Racine, $200 for single
men and $500 for married men; and in Winnetka, $244 for single men
and $851 for married men.
T

able

2 . — Annual

Allowances for Public School Teachers for Family Responsibilities,
United States, 1940-411
Annual allowance for
married men

C ity and population
group

Popu­
lation

Salary
differ-

ential

For
wife

For
each
depend­
ent
child

Remarks

O v e r 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

Massachusetts:
S pringfield...

149* 554

$100

$50

Total maximum allowance, $200. Rec­
ommended that grants be made
only to men 45 years of age or younger
ana no allowance granted when both
husband and wife are employed.

8 0 ,0 0 0 -1 0 0 ,0 0 0

Illinois:
Elgin.................
R ock Isla n d ...

Iowa:
Cedar Rapids.

Council Bluffs.

Michigan:
D e a r b o r n (Fordson
D istrict)...................
Mississippi:
Jackson......................... .
Missouri:
Joplin.............................
St. Joseph......................
Oklahoma:
Muskogee......................
Wisconsin:
Green B a y....................
Oshkosh........................
R acine.......................... .
Sheboygan................... .
Superior.........................

$50-$500
42,775

62,120

41,439

100

37,144
75,711

Beginning salary for married man,
$1,500 (minimum for women and sin­
gle men, $1,140 and $1,428, according
to training). N o differential in max­
imum salaries.
M inim um for married high-school teach­
ers. N o differential between mar­
ried and single men in highest salary
group. Maximum differential for all
men, $474.96 above that for women.

72-360

237.48

63,584
67,107

Differential for single men, $50 to $250.
W hen wife or husband not regularly
employed. Child beneficiaries must
be under 21. Maximum allowance
$500.

If wife has no regular paying position.

100

<*>

Differential for single men, 25 percent.
Above schedule.
M inimum salary for married men,
$1,350; for women and single men,
$950 to $1,400, according to training.

8 10

400

32,332

100

46,235
39,089
67,195
40,638
35,136

300
400
500
300

$50 above schedule for single men.
Differential for single men, $200.

100

100

Differential for single men, $100.
For dependent husband or wife and
for 1 or more other total dependents
under 21 years of age.

1 0 ,0 0 0 - 6 0 ,0 0 0

Colorado:
Grand Junction.
Illinois:
W innetka..........
Iowa:
Fort M ad ison ..
N ew ton..............

12,479

90

12,430

851

Differential for single men, $244.

14,063

200

10,462

185

Annual maximum salary for married
men, $200 above that for women.
A bove salary of single men and women,
in high school.

1 Data taken from available schedules which in some cases were for earlier years.
* 40 percent.
* Per month.




52
T

FAMILY ALLOWANCE® IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

able

2 . — Annual

Allotoances for Public School Teachers for Family Responsibilities,
United States, 1940-41— Continued
Annual allowance for
married men

C ity and population
group

Popu­
lation

Salary
differ­
ential

For
wife

For
each
depend­

Remarks

ent

child
1 0 ,0 0 0 - 8 0 ,0 0 0 — Con.
Kansas:
Emporia.....................

13,188

$200

Lawrence..

14,390

75-100

Wellesley.......

15,127

700-1,000

Michigan:
Ironw ood.......

13,369

Minnesota:
Virginia.........
W inona_____
Nebraska:
Grand Island
N ew M exico:
Roswell..........
N ew York:
Garden C ity.

Oklahoma:
Bartlesville...

Pennsylvania:
Beaver Falls..
South Dakota:
Rapid C it y ...
Wisconsin:
Beaver D am .

A n y teacher who is head of a family,
according to article 7 of Kansas “ In­
come Tax Laws” and regulation 33.
Heads of families shall be advanced at
least $75-$100 per annum until they
receive $1,500, except those without
an A. B. degree who will be limited
to $1,250.
Lower differential for regular minimum
salary. Higher differential for regular
maximum salary.
A bove lowest regular minimum sched­
ule. N o scheduled differential at
maximum salary.

12,264
22,490

300

19,130

100

13,482

100

A bove that for women and single men.
Maximum salary not to exceed $2,100.

200

11,223

$50

Classroom teacher. W idows also eligi­
ble for grant for each minor child in
immediate family.
In addition to normal scheduled salary.

$300

100

Classroom or special teachers. A llow ­
ances for children up to 18 years of
age. W idows eligible for children’s
allowances.
Other things being equal, single men
also receive $100 above women.
However, when latter have children
in school, differential is paid.

16,267

17,098

100

If wife is not in gainful employment.

13,844

120

Single men, $60 above basic schedule.

10,356

250

B eloit_______

25,365

400

Single men, $150 in addition to regular
salary.
Single men, $200 above basic salary.
W om en with dependents m ay be
placed in same schedule as men.

C udahy........ .
Fond du Lac.
Janesville___

10,561
27,209
22,992

200
400

Neenah..........
T w o R iv ers..
W yom ing:
Cheyenne___

10,645
10,302

400
400

22,474

120

6. 000-10,000
Connecticut:
Putnam ......................
Illinois:
Naperville...................
Riverside.....................
Minnesota:
Columbia H e igh ts....
E ly ................................
Eveleth........................
Owatonna............... ....
St. Louis Park............
W illmar_____________

4Per month; maximum.



Differential for single men, $200.
M en are not considered as included in
regular schedule. Extra pay offered
to married men.
Differential for single men, $200.
D o.
30-60

$120 paid

for first dependent; $60 for
second; and $30 for third and sub­
sequent dependents. School board
m ay approve of allowances for de­
pendents other than wives and
children.

8,692

150

In high school.

5,272
7,935

400
<52

Differential for single men, $200.
Single men m ay receive as much as $26
per month above schedule.

6,035
5,970
6,887

200

7,737
7,623

100

200

300-500
300

200

W idows with dependents also eligible.
As compared with women.
Differential for single men, $150.
Effective school year after marriage.

UNITED STATES
T

2 . — Annual

able

53

Allowances for Public School Teachers for Family Responsibilities,
United States, 1940-41— Continued
Annual allowance for
married men

C ity and population
group

6 ,0 0 0 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 — Con.
Montana:
Bozeman..................

Nebraska:
Kearney____
Y ork .............
N orth Dakota:
Devils Lake.
Jam estown..
Ohio:
Defiance____

Popu­
lation

Salary
differ­
encial

8,665

$150-$300

9,643
5,383

200

6,204
8,790

300
250

9,744

300

For
wife

For
each
depend­
ent
child

Remarks

Higher allowance is for the minimum
salary; lower, for the maximum.

96

Differential for single men, $100.
Maximum differential. N o differential
at minimum, but automatic salary
increases for married men amount to
or double those for single men
and women.

$100

Pennsylvania:
Palmerton..

7,475

50

10

Also an additional $50 after 6 years of
local service as a married male
teacher. Allowance for dependent
children under 18.

South Dakota:
Lead............

7,520

100

100

Allowance for legal dependents only.
Total maximum, $400.

100

50

2 ,5 0 0 - 5 ,0 0 0

Idaho:
Gooding............. .
Illinois:
Paxton............... .
Shelbyville.........
Sycamore............
Iowa:
West Des M oines____
Junior high school
Senior high school.
Michigan
East Grand R apids.

W ayne,.
Minnesota:
Gilbert..
Hopkins__________
-year degrees.
4-year degrees.

2

Hutchinson.
Litchfield...................
N orthfield.................
North St. Paul.........
Waseca.......................
years training..
4 years training..
Ohio:
Perrysburg.................

2

Utah:
Washington County,
including St. George.
Wisconsin:
Algoma......................

Waupaca..




2,568
3,106
4,092
4,702

350
100
600

Differential for single men, $200.
For maximum. M inim um and auto­
matic salary increases the same for
both sexes.

4,252
90-115
100-215
4,080
4,899

100
200

For minimum salaries.
For maximum salaries.
Above salary schedule.
Above salary for women. W omen who
have financial responsibilities equiva­
lent to men m ay receive differential
b y vote of board of education. Auto­
matic salary increases the same for
both sexes.

4,223

300

2,504

100

M ust have been married b y opening of
school year.

504-540
300-324

lHigh-sehool teachers. Lower differ/ entials are for those receiving higher
salaries. Differentials also provided
for single men.
Above the schedule for women. Single
men also receive a differential.

4,100

3,887
3,920
4,533
3,135
4,270

200

300
180
270-450
360-450

Differential for single men, $100.
Differential for single men, $45.
IHigh-school teachers. Single men also
/ receive differentials.
Extra allowance for married
Amount not specified.

3.457

men.

120

W idowers and widows with dependent
children also receive this differential.

2,852

190

3.458

200

High-school teachers only. Differen­
tial for single men, $95.
Differential for single men, $100.

3,591

54

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

^A superintendent of schools in a letter to the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics stated that the extra allowance for children to public schools
teachers is “ an attempt to compensate in part for the contribution that
teachers with children are making in addition to their teaching service.
We believe that it is right, that it is based on social justice and fair play.”
He added that they pay single men more than women “ for an entirely
different reason. We are forced to do this in order to compete with the
many vocations that attract the best men as contrasted with the
limited number of vocations open for women. * * * We have to
pay more to get a man as good as a woman teacher we can employ for
less money, and we need some men and want good ones. The men
soon marry and start families anyway and then they need the extra
money for the support of the family.”
. In 1941 it was reported that for the most part the attitude of the
teachers in the public schools of Winnetka, 111., toward bonuses for
family responsibilities was “ satisfactory.” However, some adverse
feeling existed among women teachers, especially those having de­
pendents, against extra allowances for male teachers, who are bach­
elors. The tax limitations in the town make it impossible to pay all
teachers salaries as high as those which include the supplementary pay­
ments, but in order to obtain some men for the staff it has been neces­
sary to institute these differentials.
According to the superintendent of the Garden City public schools,
the teachers, the school administration, and the community in 1941
were all heartily in favor of the family allowances. “ Each year at the
hearing of the budget, some one, a newcomer, asks a question about
family allowances and I have never heard a dissenting voice after the
matter is fully explained. W7e feel that such a scheme enables us to
retain many teachers who otherwise would be attracted to adminis­
trative positions at higher salaries. The family allowance enables us
to pay salaries comparable with those of many administrative positions
and enables the teacher to stay in teaching work if he or she prefers
to do so.”
The only adverse comments on salary differentials for married male
teachers in Palmerton, Pa., the local superintendent of schools reports,
were from a few women teachers who were property owners and who
considered that their responsibilities were as great as those of family
men.
Arguments for and Against Family Allowances for School Teachers

An analysis of the pros and cons of family allowances for teachers
indicates that the basic objections to these grants are that married
men would find it increasingly difficult to secure employment in com­
petition with single men and unmarried women equally well equipped
as teachers; that teachers should be paid according to their ability,
not extraneous circumstances; and that the problem of encouraging
large families is not one for the school but for society at large.
Among the m^ajor arguments for the institution in question are
equalization of the economic burden resulting from family responsibili­
ties; encouragement of the home; that teachers supporting several
people on their income cannot enjoy the same cultural advantages and
give as much attention to progressive professional activities as single
teachers having the same salary; and the reasonableness of compen­




UNITED STATES

55

sating couples who are making a contribution to the perpetuation of
society.
Provisions for equal pay for teachers, enforced by law in various
States and reported for the greater number of communities in which
teachers’ salary schedules are operated in accordance with the rules
and regulations of boards of education, are not without draw-backs.
It is alleged that not only do such provisions “ ignore the fact that the
relationship of wage conditions outside of the public service to teach­
ers’ salaries has a profound effect upon the supply and demand of male
teachers, but it overlooks entirely the economic problem confronting
married men, especially those with dependent children.” 4 A profes­
sor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, an expert
on salary schedules for teachers, declares that“ equal pay legislation
is desirable and justifiable only when it is accompanied by a system of
family allowances.”
The Seventh International Congress on Public Education, held in
1938, in its recommendations concerning the salaries of elementary
school teachers, stated: “ It is desirable that a special allowance, pro­
portional to their expenses, should be made to teachers having
family responsibilities.” 5
Positions taken by some of the opponents to these grants for depend­
ents are reported below:
The Final Report of the New York City Citizens Committee on
Teachers’ Salaries, published in 1927 by the Bureau of Publications,
Teacjiers College, Columbia University, New York, rejected the pro­
posal for the inclusion in the salary schedule of the “ family wage” or
higher remuneration for teachers having heavier family responsi­
bilities.
To allow differentials in salary on account of varying numbers of dependents
would most certainly defeat the very purpose which the proponents of the plan
hope to achieve. * * * Under such conditions married men with children
would find it increasingly difficult to secure employment in competition with
young men and unmarried women who are equally qualified to do the actual job
of teaching.
The direct argument against the family wage is just as important, Teachers
should be paid upon the basis of their teaching ability, measured as objectively
as can be done, and not on the basis that boards of education are charitable insti­
tutions or in some peculiar way to be held responsible for administering the State’s
obligation to provide for its own progress and perpetuity.

Ward G. Reeder, in his volume on The Fundamentals of Public
School Administration, declares:
Granted that qualifications and services are equal, women teachers should re­
ceive the same pay as men. Right and justice demand this parity. A different
schedule for the two sexes brings never-ending trouble with both the women teach­
ers and the public. If to secure a larger number of male teachers it is deemed
expedient to pay them larger salaries, let the extra pay be given them for special
duties, such as administering a department.

An excerpt from the Survey Report of the Cincinnati Public School,
Cincinnati, Ohio,6 reads as follows: “ On the basis of the information
now at hand, the survey staff does not feel justified in recommending
a salary differential on the basis of sex. Rather the staff reaffirms the
principle that equal pay should be given for equal qualifications and
services.”
4 The American Teacher, b y Willard S. Elsbree. New York, American B ook Co., 1939.
* International Bureau of Education. Bulletin N o. 48 (Geneva), 3d quarter, 1938 (pp. 107-10). For article
on family allowances for teachers in certain foreign countries, see M onthly Labor Review, December 1932
(pp. 1355-1357).
• Cincinnati Bureau of Government Research (Cincinnati), Report N o. 64,1935 (p. 254).




FAMILY ALLOWANCES IGSF VARIOUS COUNTRIES

56

The following arguments against salary differentials for men and
women are cited in the National Education Association Research
Bulletin for March 1936:
1. Equal pay for equal work is a growing practice and is fundamentally sound.
2. Salaries should be based on service rendered and not on extraneous ques~
tions, such as sex.
3. The assumptions that men are the only ones who carry the burden of depend­
ents is fallacious.
4. Women are rapidly attaining equality with men in other occupations and in
other aspects of life.

The dilemma occasioned by this stand is also outlined in the same
issue of the bulletin:
1. If salaries of women teachers are raised to the level of those paid men teach
ers, great increases in taxes will be necessary.
2. On the other hand, if salaries of men teachers are reduced to equal those of
women, many capable men teachers will leave school work for other occupations.
3. Our public schools are already suffering from overfeminization. Growing
children should have contacts with both men and women teachers.
4. The supply of men teachers is limited; higher salaries must therefore be paid
to secure their services.

Number of dependents as a basis for differentials in the salaries of
teachers is very graphically objected to by J. R. McGaughy in his book,
An Evaluation of the Elementary School. He holds that such a system
would defeat the purpose of securing more male teachers, and points
out that it is not the responsibility of schools to wrestle with the prob­
lem of encouraginglargefamilies, but that the problem should be taken
up by society at large.
Dr. Paul Popenoe, however, strongly approves of family allowances.
In an article entitled “ Can We Afford Children?” in the Forum, De­
cember 1937, he wrote: “ Any solution of the population problem must
therefore involve, at the outset, some equalization of the economic
burdens of childbearing.” He stressed especially the problem as re­
lated to educated people who want their children to have all possible
advantages; “ the 2-child family is now virtually standardized in this
class, producing about half enough children to replace its own numbers/’
He holds that an allowance of 15 percent of the annual income for each
child would not be an incentive for “ an educated couple to try to pro­
duce babies for revenue only.” The bonus would merely offset the
parents’ actual expenditure for each child.
To prevent discrimination against the employment of married teach­
ers, Dr. Popenoe suggested the establishment of an equalization fund,
for example, among 100 high schools of Massachusetts, who would pay
their principals $2,000 per annum with 15 percent additional for a wife
and each child, the payment of salaries and bonuses to be made from
the pooled funds and not directly by the local boards of education.
Yet another argument for additional remuneration to men with
family responsibilities was advanced by Douglas E. Scates in a paper
presented before the city directors of research of the American Educa­
tional Research Association in Washington, February 20, 1932, as
follows: “ The psychological justification for such a differential in
salaries is equally, if not more, significant. The teacher with several
people living on one income cannot enjoy the same degree of culture
and cannot give the same amount of attention to developing leader­
ship as can the teacher who has only himself or herself to think of.” 7
7 National

Education Association, Research Bulletin (Washington), October 26.1932.




UNITED STATES

57

William C. Morrison, of the Beverly Hills High School, California,
in an article, Higher Salaries for Married Men,8 makes the following
recommendation for overcoming what he regards as existing injustices:
1. One job to one family.
2. Single teachers paid the present salary wage.
3. Married men paid 15 percent above the present salary wage and 15 percent
additional for each child up to and including three.
It is time that something definite be done to counteract the suppression of
the family, something definite be done to encourage, rather than discourage,
the home. Here is an opportunity for boards of education to put into practice
a sound economic principle.

In Administering the Teaching Personnel, by Dennis H. Cooke,
professor of school administration at the George Peabody College
for Teachers, Nashville, Tenn., the author recommends a salary
allowance of $300 per annum for a man teacher with a dependent
wife and a family allowance (to be paid to women also) of $100 for
each minor child up to and including five children.
Dr. E. R. Enlow, director of statistics and special services, public
schools, Atlanta, Ga., proposes that the persistent puzzle of differen­
tials for married men teachers should be dealt with “ by means of
a scientifically derived formula.” The differential he suggests “ should
probably be based on the typical male and the typical female.”
Suppose, for example, that the model male teacher were found to
be possessed of a wife and two children; the salary differential would
then be based on the ratio between the cost of living for such a man
and that of a single woman.9
According to E. H. Hanson, superintendent of schools, Rock Island,
111., this proposition, should be modified for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal to pay all men teachers higher salaries because
the typical man is married and has two children is not reasonable
since many teachers are bachelors and “ do not deserve the differ­
ential.” (2) The suggested plan is not just, because under it families
with one child would be overcompensated and those with more than
two children would be undercompensated. (3) The suggested scheme
is indefensible from the social viewpoint because it rewards couples
without children to the same extent that it compensates parents
with family responsibilities. (4) The formula proposed by Dr. Enlow
does not take into consideration widows or wives of men who have
become crippled—women who must bear the burden of supporting
their families. It is simple to provide an allowance on the basis of
the number of dependent children. Mr. Hanson referred to the Rock
Island differential which, he states, has been working successfully
for 5 years in a city of 40,000 population and part of a metropolitan
area with 170,000 population. This differential is on a basis which
he considers desirable. He admits that the differential is inadequate
but adds that when funds are available this situation would be
corrected by increasing the allowance for each child.1®
In the report of the National Education Association’s Committee
on the Economic Status of the Teacher, The Teacher’s Economic
Position: Facts and Recommendations, published in 1935, proposing
a hypothetical salary schedule, the committee made this comment
concerning its application to men and women: “ One such schedule
8 California Society of Secondary Education, California Journal of Secondary Education (Santa M onica,
Calif.), February 1936.
9 American School Board Journal (Milwaukee, W is.), February 1940.
Idem, M arch 1940.




FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

58

might be used for women, and a different one for men, or the same
one might be used for both men and women. In the latter case, the
necessities used as a basis for the minimum salary should be those
of the single women without dependents and not maintaining a home,
while the necessities used as a basis for the maximum salary should
be those of the married man maintaining a home and supporting
dependents."
Other Discussions and Recommendations on Family Allowances

While the subject of family allowances has received scant attention
in the United States from the majority of economists, sociologists,
and labor experts, a few outstanding persons in these professional
groups have, however, considered favorably the possibility of institut­
ing such grants in this country.
Family allowances were on the program of the Catholic Conference
on Industrial Problems, held in Detroit in 1927, and of the annual meet­
ing of National Conference of Catholic Charities, held in New Orleans
in 1929. Two papers regarding such grants were presented to the
National Conference on Social Work, the later contribution being
made in May 1942 by F. E. Andrews, manager of the publication depart­
ment of the Russell Sage Foundation. In closing his address, Mr.
Andrews said:
Family allowances may be coming sooner than we dream. If they come, social
work needs to be in a position to direct this social force, which may prove an addi­
tion to social security only less important than that act itself in its influence on
living conditions in America.11

Even in the United States family allowances have not been without
their special pleaders. Indeed, almost 30 years ago Mary E. Rich­
mond in The Survey of February 15, 1913, said: “ We must give at­
tention to this endowment of motherhood idea—it concerns all social
work."
Over 20 years ago Paul H. Douglas began writing on and making
recommendations for family allowances not only in his book “ Wage
and the Family," but in various articles and addresses.
The late Ethelbert Stewart, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 192032, while “ unalterably opposed to a difference in industrial wage rates
as between the married and the unmarried" favored a “ social allowance
by which our political and social institutions will pay for the replace­
ment of the race to those who are replacing the race. There is no rea­
son," he contended, “ * * * why the man who is keeping up our
social structure, our very civilization itself, should be penalized for his
loyalty to the race and for his willingness to shoulder the burdens
which others shirk."12
In the judgment of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong in “ Insuring the
Essentials"(1932), family endowment does not seem at the present
to find a place in a practical program of legal minimum wage. The
device of family allowances, however, is peculiarly adapted to the
designs of social insurance.
Dr. John A. Ryan, Director of the Social Action Department of
the National Catholic Welfare Conference, at the second meeting of
11 Proceedings of the National Conference of Social W ork, N ew Orleans, M ay 10-16,1942 (N ew York, 1942).
A family wage-rate vs. family social-endowment fund, b y Ethelbert Stewart. (In Social Forces (Chapel
Hill, University of North Carolina), September 1927, p. 120.)




UNITED STATES

59

the International Conference on Social Work, at Frankfurt-am-Main,
recommended family allowances,13 and he includes some discussion of
these subsidies in the revised edition of his “ Distributive Justice”
(1942).
In addressing the American Public Welfare Association at its con­
joint meeting with the National Conference on Social Work at Indian­
apolis in May 1937, Harry Hopkins, then Works Progress Administra­
tor, urged a general broadening of social-security legislation. He said
in part:
Children in poverty are perhaps the greatest single groups with which we must
deal, and the Social Security Act might well be extended to touch every child
dwelling in a home where poverty exists. They, too, should be given pensions for
a long or short period of time—aid similar to the widows1pensions in many States.
They have a right to a fair start in life. While other types of benefits, such as un­
employment insurance, will help diminish the need among children, much will
remain; and this type of assistance must be very broad in its terms.14

Referring to the social-security work for dependent children, already
reaching 360,000 at the time of his address, Mr. Hopkins said that in
this vast country that was a small number indeed and the amount of
these benefits was far too meager in many States. “ This year [1937]
their benefits will total nearly $4,000,000.”
In February 1942, 954,863 dependent children in 396,417 families
were receiving public aid under the Social Security Act in States with
plans approved by the Social Security Board. The amount of such aid
aggregated $13,511,395.15
In his address, Mr. Hopkins also said:
The question which we are really discussing here tonight is whether or not it
is possible, under our form of government, for each family in the United States to
have security and to be freed from poverty and want. We, as a people, have faith
that this can be done by patient, persistent effort—by the democratic forces.

In the seventh annual report of the Social Security Board, 1942, after
a reference to the existing scheme of making Federal grants to States
under the Social Security Act for dependent children, the following
statement is made:
Consideration should be given also to extending the scope of the program by
including children whose need is due to causes other than those now specified, i. e.,
the parent's death, incapacityj or absence from home. It has been suggested, for
example, that Federal matching grants should be available for approved State
plans which furnish aid to any child whose family resources are insufficient to
insure healthful growth and development.

Dr. Edgar Schmiedler, O. S. B., Director of the Family Life Bureau
of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, stated his views as
follows:
We hear much today about the living wage. In the case of the adult male the
term should really be the ‘‘family” living wage. The term means, of course, that a
wage-earning man should get an income at least sufficient to support himself and
his family in frugal comfort. He has a specific right to that. It is a right flowing
from the fundamental human right that the individual has to marry and rear a
family, and upon the fact that the wage which a worker gets in return for his labor
is commonly the only source of income which he has for the support of himself and
his family.
But, in spite of all that has been said on the subject, in spite even of the Fed­
eral minimum-wage law, great numbers of workingmen ordinarily are not receiv­
ing a family minimum wage. Neither the automatic forces of competition nor
13 Proceedings. Karlsruhe (Baden), 1933.
14N ew York Times (N ew Y ork), M a y 28,1937.
15United States Social Security Board. Social Security Bulletin (W ashington), April 1942 (p. 32).




60

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

the benevolence of employers has enabled a host of adult male workers to command
the means necessary to rear a family in accordance with reasonable standards. * * *
Family allowances aim to provide increased income in view of increased family
burdens. They provide for a basic wage for all male workers, whether married
or unmarried, in an industry, and then for a supplementary allowance to heads
of families, the amount commonly being based on the number of children in a
family.
Family-allowanee systems, as now functioning, may. not be ideal. But the
defects in them are not irremediable. Allowances have become fairly common
in Europe and have done much good. They are now being used extensively in
this country in the case of dependents of men in the armed forces.

In the 1938 edition of his comprehensive volume, Insecurity—A
Challenge to America, the late Abraham Epstein declares that—
The value of a system of family allowances cannot be questioned. No one can
deny the injustice now imposed upon parents who have to raise a large family
on wages which are frequently insufficient for the parents, let alone the children.
The adoption of family allowances would prove beneficial from every point
of view. It would relieve much of the anxiety and poverty which now confronts
many parents. It would bring about great efficiency and reduce labor turnover.
It would distribute among all employers the burden of relief which a few humane
employers now carry on account of the larger family needs of some of their workers.
From the point of view of society it is the surest and cheapest way of promoting
health and raising the standard of the race both physically and morally. It is
the easiest way of preventing the stunted growth of children and is the least
expensive method of reducing infant mortality.

In the report of the National Resources Planning Board “ After
the War—Full Employment” (1942), Dr. Alvin H. Hansen presented
certain income models as aids to analysis and formulation of policy.
He thinks that among the post-war policies suggested by these models
is an expansion of public-welfare expenditures, including family
allowances.
Proposals Suggestive of Child Endowment

Under the section on “ Post War Planning for Children and Youth,”
in the National Resources Development Report of 1942 (p. 113), the
National Resources Planning Board states that—
for any view that looks to the post-war period, children and youth are the most
significant among human beings.
We as a people cannot afford to cheapen the civilization we are defending by
neglecting the quality of the generation for which we hold it in trust. There is no
reasonable alternative to doing all in our power to insure young people the oppor­
tunity to grow into the best men and women they are capable of becoming.
Even under the most favorable economic conditions yet experienced there have
remained numerous families who needed assistance to carry on the normal func­
tions of the home. The question of any major reduction of the social services
other than unemployment relief is therefore largely academic, at least for the
present. We need to strengthen them, to maintain the channels through which
they are administered, to create new channels. It is especially important to in­
crease the social services intended specifically to benefit children and youth.16

The'Board also called attention to the fact that it is not generally recog­
nized how very many young persons live in families so poor that oppor­
tunities for normal growth and development are drastically limited.
While data on this problem are not complete, it is known that in gen­
eral there is a concentration of large families in the low-income groups.
While large families are very obviously in the minority they include a
heavy proportion of the children.
Nearly half of all white American children are in families that when completed
will have had five or more children, and approximately a quarter are in families
16 National Resources Pllhning Board: National Resources Development Report, 1942 (Washington,
1942), p. 119.




UNITED STATES

61

of seven or more children. This fact alone suggests the magnitude of the problem
created by the impact of poverty upon the growing child. It is likely that some
of the soqial-service programs now being conducted for needy families in general
should be pointed more particularly toward families with dependent children.

It is suggested in the report under review that the food-stamp plan
might be amended by the inclusion of a special provision for families
with children. Its objective would then be to enable each member of
the family to have a well-balanced diet rather than primarily to utilize
surplus crops. A start has already been made by the extension of
the stamp plan to clothing. The clothing-stamp plan should be made
more comprehensive and might include provisions for a wider distri­
bution of children’s clothing. Moreover, on public housing projects
it would be well to make special provision for families having several
children. “ Home or family security is essential and it is proper for
society to insure it.”
In brief, social services for children and youth “ should insure in ade­
quate measure to all children and youth the advantages provided by
a good home.” Provisions for reaching this goal should “ strengthen
the ability of the family to perform its normal functions toward young
people by adopting all practicable measures to stabilize and increase
family income.” Where necessary, special measures should be taken
“ to enable the family to provide adequate food, housing, and clothing
for children.” 17
A reiteration of this viewpoint is found in the following pronounce­
ment in the major recommendations of the American Youth Commis­
sion’s report, Youth and the Future (1942):
It is essential that steps be taken to relieve the difficult situation of families
with large numbers of children. Suggested steps include public housing on a sub­
sidized basis; health and medical service with special emphasis on maternal and
child care; an extension of the food-stamp plan whereby free stamps sufficient for
an adequate minimum diet for children would be made available upon purchase
of stamps for an adequate minimum diet for the adult members of the family; and
use of special clothing stamps negotiable only for childrens clothing.

Among those holding that it is imperative to reduce the economic
handicaps resulting from family responsibilities but who favor some
other way of meeting the problem than by cash family allowances
are Frank Lorimer, Ellen Winston, and Louise K. Kiser. They
advocate, in their book, Foundations of American Population Policy,18
various other forms of Government aid for mothers and children. On
the ground of benefits provided by the plan recommended, these
authors hold that the expense to the State or other economic under­
takings is not so great. They concede, however, that such a system
would not bring about a proportional reduction of expenditures for
children in all income groups but only in the case of the basic require­
ments for which it provided. “ Finally, it would represent a concrete
expression of public interest in parenthood and child life.” The
volume here referred to states that the philosophy back of the Swedish
population program has been formulated along these lines. That
program includes “ proportionate rent allowances for low and medium
rental homes for families with three or more children, public nurseryschool provisions for children, public medical services for mothers
and children, free nutritious lunches for primary-school children,
and other provisions for maternal and child welfare.”
17 National Resources Planning Board: National Resources Development Report, 1942 (Washington,
1942), pp. 119 and 129.
18 Prepared for the Committee on Population Studies and Social Planning of the National Econom ic
and Social Planning Association.




62

FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES

A statement of the National Citizens Committee of the 1940 White
House Conference on Children in a Democracy, based on recommen­
dations of that conference which are vital to the protection and welfare
of children in wartime, includes the following lines:
In a democracy the child receives shelter, food, clothing, early training, and
preparation for effective citizenship as a member of a family. * * *
The family in order to serve the child must have an income to provide the essen­
tials of food, clothing, shelter, and health.19

In the declaration of opportunities in the Final Act of the Eighth
Pan American Child Congress, Washington, D. C., May 2-9,1942, that
organization held that two of the essentials for the creation of a family
atmosphere suitable for child development were “ that every child
should live in a family having an adequate standard of living and a
stable economic foundation” and that “ the State should take measures
to assure the economic stability of the family.” 20
This Congress also recommended that the American International
Institute for the Protection of Childhood be the permanent agency of
the child congresses for carrying out so far as possible their resolu­
tions and recommendations and should be officially recognized by the
American Republics as the central body for scientific study and coop­
erative action relative to matters which affect the welfare of children.
Among many matters of immediate importance specified for con­
sideration by the institute was a study of family-allowance systems.
URUGUAY

Some industries in Uruguay pay family allowances to their em­
ployees. Also, a decree of the President of the Republic of Uruguay
authorized the National Board of Fuel, Alcohol, and Portland Cement
(Administracion National de Combustibles, Alcohol y Portland) to include
in its budget 27,500 pesos for family allowances for its manual and
nonmanual personnel from July 1938.21
Y U G O S L A V IA

(C R O A T I A )22

In Croatia State, employees with monthly incomes of 6,000 kunas
or over had not been granted family allowances, but under a new regu­
lation effective retroactively to April 1, 1943, that figure was raised to
12,000 kunas. Formerly an employee was not entitled to an allowance
for his family if his wife received more than 450 kunas per month from
her work or from private income. As of April 1, 1943, this figure was
advanced to 1,000 kunas. Effective on that date the family allowance
was raised from 105 to 150 kunas monthly for each member of the fam­
ily. Also, in the future, family allowances were to be paid in full with­
out any deductions for such items as social insurance and the employ­
ment tax.23
U. S. Children's Bureau. Children in the democracy for which we strive. Washington, March 16, 1942.
Mimeographed.
*• Pan American Union, Washington, D . C.
« International Labor Office Year-Book, 1938-39 (Geneva), 1939 (p. 228).
» As a result of the Nazi conquest, Croatia was set up as a separate kingdom.
** American counsular report from Istanbul, June 16,1943.




UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1943

For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. - Price 10 cents