Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Ecuador and Chile

The Role of Policy Diffusion

Cecilia Osorio Gonnet

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9783030510077
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030510084
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book offers readers a deeper understanding of the diffusion process of the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) programs in Latin America and the role played by experts and international organizations. CCTs have been increasingly implemented around the world in recent decades, and by 2010, 17 countries in Latin America had adopted them. The evidence suggests that this concentration is due to a process of policy diffusion. International organizations contribute to this process; however, the book's main argument is that there was another, more important actor involved: a regional epistemic community that increased the availability of information about CCTs and reinforced their legitimacy, playing a role in the domestic processes of formulation and adoption.

This book addresses the diffusion of the programs throughout the region; diffusion mechanisms that can help us understand the programs' adoption (emulation, learning and coercion); and the impacts of key actors on the process (epistemic community, international organizations and policymakers).

© The Author(s) 2020

C. Osorio GonnetConditional Cash Transfer Programs in Ecuador and Chilehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51008-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Cecilia Osorio Gonnet¹

(1)

Politics and Government Department, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile

Cecilia Osorio Gonnet

Email: [email protected]

Keywords

Conditional Cash Transfer ProgramsLatin AmericaPolicy diffusion

Some contents of this book have already been published in academic articles Osorio Gonnet (2015, 2016, 2017) and Osorio Gonnet and Vergara (2016). There is also a Spanish version, Osorio Gonnet 2018. I would like to thank to Daniela Barraza, Daniela Castillo and Daniela Dupré for their essential contribution to the final edition of this book.

End Abstract

During the 1990s, social policies in Latin America underwent a number of changes that marked a paradigm shift in this area (Franco 1996). These transformations are situated within the set of structural reforms applied since the end of the 1980s: structural adjustment measures, market liberalization, privatization and reformulation of the role of the State, processes of transition to democracy, and transformations in civil society.¹ The new paradigm of social policies focused its objectives on overcoming poverty, thus focusing programs and benefits on the population in this situation.² It also ended the State’s monopoly on the management and financing of social policies by including new actors, promoting the application of mechanisms for selecting and targeting beneficiaries and decentralization processes, among other aspects (Franco 1996; Sottoli 2002).

It is in this context that Conditional Cash Transfer Programs (CCTs) emerged in the mid-1990s as pilot experiences in Brazil and Mexico (Cohen and Franco 2006). These programs were—and still are—aimed at providing monetary support to poor and extremely poor families and increasing human capital development in children and adolescents in those family groups (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the characteristics of the CCTs). Their essential feature was the provision of money to low-income households, on the condition that the families used certain health and/or education services (Cecchini and Madariaga 2011).

Conditionality was their most distinctive component, distinguishing them from other money transfers. The provision of money or goods was already carried out in earlier programs such as Asignación Familiar (Family Assignation) in Uruguay (from the early 1940s), Asignación Familiar (Family Assignation) and Subsidio Familiar (Family Subsidy), both in Chile³ (Veras 2010). The literature generally agrees on the innovative nature of conditionality, although it also notes that the idea of compensation would already be observed in other cases.⁴ What is relevant here is that this component is essential to the monetary transfer and is also replicated in all of them. Also, the CCTs are distinguished because they all focus this benefit on a specific population, often on those in a situation of vulnerability, and avoid universalistic approaches. The option of targeting versus providing benefits to broader groups (for example, the working population) has been installed in social programs and policies in the region since the 1980s (and in some countries such as Chile since the 1970s). The use of targeted approaches in all Latin American CCTs (and in many other initiatives since those years) is a clear sign of their consolidation as a social policy option (Franco 1996; Sottoli 2002).

During the 1990s and until 2010, CCTs spread throughout Latin America. They were also implemented, for example, in Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan. There are also pilot programs in many African countries and some local experiences in cities of developed countries such as New York and Washington, DC (Fiszbein and Schady 2009; Peck and Theodore 2010). However, the geographical concentration in Latin America stands out in comparison to the rest of the world, since 17 out of 20 countries have implemented them (León 2008; Fiszbein and Schady 2009).

CCTs benefited, in 2010, about 113 million people in Latin America (Cecchini and Madariaga 2011: 107), and compared to other programs, their benefits were broader and their institutional characteristics more complex (Fiszbein and Schady 2009: 38). Despite this broad coverage, in most of the region’s countries the percentage of spending in relation to social investment is low—on average 0.40% in 2009 (Cecchini and Madariaga 2011: 106)—, although in all of them there is an increase from the time of their first implementation. In relation to requirements, the CCTs have demanded the improvement of measurement and monitoring instruments, which in the long term has positively affected other programs in the social sphere (Fiszbein and Schady 2009). In this regard, there are evaluations of their impact, which show a decrease in school dropouts and an increase in attendance at health checks (Johannsen et al. 2009; Barrientos and DeJong 2006; Handa and Davis 2006; Britto 2005). It also shows that CCTs have succeeded in contributing to reducing the poverty gap and mitigating the consequences of economic crises. Considering these results, the specialists have described and analyzed their characteristics in abundance, also making recommendations on their design and implementation, which forms an important knowledge base on these initiatives.⁵

The above confirms that CCTs constitute a set of relevant social programs in Latin America and that, compared to other regions, a high concentration of these initiatives is observed in this region. Taking this as a starting point, this book seeks to identify which are the variables that explain the massive and significant presence of CCTs in the region. A plausible explanation for this question may be based on the fact that the countries have certain structural similarities—such as the presidential regime, for example—given their historical past as Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Along with this common legacy, the region as a whole had to face high levels of poverty and inequality during the 1990s as a result of structural adjustments and economic liberalization policies implemented in previous years. A first regional look would privilege these common characteristics to explain the coincidence in the policies to overcome poverty; similar countries would formulate similar policies. This might be a reasonable starting point, but at least the question arises as to why these coincidences are not observed in other programs promoted during the same period by various countries.

On the other hand, a detailed analysis of the countries shows that they differ in terms of their political and institutional background. Likewise, they do so in relation to their economic development, their Gross Domestic Product and their levels of poverty. Consequently, it is necessary to clarify why different countries, such as Brazil and Honduras, have decided to apply the same type of program. A coincidence between all countries and their domestic decisions could be argued again. It could also be attributed to external pressures, coming from international organizations or multilateral banks, which would have encouraged the adoption of this particular program. However, both alternatives do not constitute a solid explanation for the notorious geographical convergence and/or “the prodigious pace” of its adoption by countries (Fiszbein and Schady 2009: 29).

Considering the above, the explanation I propose is that the numerous presence of programs in the region is the result of a process of policy diffusion. That is, when information about policy adoption is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system in an uncoordinated manner, and where the first adoptions of an innovation affect the probability of doing so among those who have not adopted it (Jordana et al. 2011: 1347). In the analysis of the diffusion processes it is possible to identify three elements—on which there is a certain consensus in the literature—and that can be, in a preliminary way, observed in the expansion of the CCTs. First, diffusion tends to occur in waves, starting slowly with some countries, then increasing significantly in number, and finally decreasing in levels due to saturation in adoption. In graphic terms, and under certain conditions of success, a diffusion process can adopt an S-shaped curve (Rogers 1995). In Latin America, if we consider the time period between 1990 and 2010 and the countries that have adopted them, we see that the curve has this character; a small number of cases at the beginning, a larger number in the middle of the period and stabilization at the end of the curve (see Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1

Wave of CCTs adoption in Latin America 1990–2010

(Source Prepared by the author with personal data base)

Secondly, the literature argues that diffusion usually displays a strong geographic concentration, because the effects of the neighborhood and the region are usually pronounced (Weyland 2006: 19).⁶ In this case, a geographic concentration is observed, since 17 of 20 countries of Latin America have applied it, which therefore suggests this process. Finally, the processes of diffusion produce the propagation of “similarity between diversity”. Different countries adopt similar policies, to which they can introduce certain modifications, but that conserve the fundamental design of the external innovation (Weyland 2006: 19). This can be seen in the region’s CCTs, which contain essential characteristics that identify them as such, but also variation in other components when analyzing each case.

The policy diffusion approach allows to address some of the unknowns about the wave of CCTs in Latin America. For example, the success of the first initiatives, PROGRESA (now PROSPERA) in Mexico and Bolsa Escuela in Brazil, could have motivated other countries to try the same alternatives (Fiszbein and Schady 2009). In this regard, Sugiyama (2011) argues that the so-called neighbor effect occurred in the region, although the channels through which this influence was exercised are not made explicit. Likewise, Morais de Sá e Silva points out that the characteris...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Social Policies and Conditional Cash Transfer Programs (CCTs) in Latin America
• 3. Mechanisms and Actors in the Diffusion of Policies: State of the Issue and Theoretical Proposal
• 4. Quantitative Analysis of the Diffusion of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Latin America
• 5. The Epistemic Community and International Organizations in the Diffusion of CCTs
• 6. Chile: The Chile Solidario Program
• 7. Ecuador, the Bono Desarrollo Humano
• 8. Conclusions
• Back Matter