Purpose

Focusing on the conditional cash transfers (CCTs) first created and implemented in Brazil and Mexico, this article takes a new look at the factors facilitating the creation of these innovative policies. In order to shed light on the continuous struggles that are faced when pioneering, formulating and adopting these anti-poverty policies, the authors analyze three types of ambiguities: axiological, partisan and electoral.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on a gradual institutional change approach within the advocacy coalition framework, the authors conduct a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews, official public administration archives and newspapers.

Findings

This article demonstrates that advocacy coalitions (for human capital, basic income and food security) and the quest for electoral gains are viable contexts for exploring the complex processes involved in setting up CCTs, of which Brazil's Bolsa-Família and Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera (POP) provide emblematic examples.

Originality/value

The findings contribute to comparative social policy research and institutional change analysis. The coalitions and ambiguous consensuses studied here expand the perspectives with a more detailed understanding of the chaotic processes involved in developing social policies.

中文翻译：

---

巴西和墨西哥开创性的反贫困政策：有条件现金转移计划的歧义和分歧

目的

本文重点关注巴西和墨西哥首次创建和实施的有条件现金转移支付 (CCT)，重新审视促进这些创新政策制定的因素。为了阐明在开创、制定和采用这些反贫困政策时所面临的持续斗争，作者分析了三种类型的模糊性：价值论、党派和选举。

设计/方法/方法

基于倡导联盟框架内的渐进制度变革方法，作者对半结构化访谈、官方公共行政档案和报纸进行了定性分析。

发现

本文表明，倡导联盟（针对人力资本、基本收入和粮食安全）和追求选举收益是探索建立 CCT 所涉及的复杂过程的可行背景，其中巴西的 Bolsa-Família 和墨西哥的 Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera (POP) 提供了象征性的例子。

原创性/价值

这些发现有助于比较社会政策研究和制度变迁分析。这里研究的联盟和模棱两可的共识扩展了视角，更详细地了解了制定社会政策所涉及的混乱过程。