Why are programs designed to alleviate poverty more successful in some countries than others? This question drives Tracy Fenwick's comparative analysis of Brazilian and Argentinian conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs, which provide small amounts of cash to households in return for complying with conditions regarding health, education and nutrition. Specifically, she compares the most important Latin American CCT program, the Brazilian Bolsa Família, developed under the administrations of Lula da Silva (2003-10) and Dilma Rousseff (2011-16), with similar ones in Argentina, such as the Programa Familias and the Asignacioń Universal por Hijo implemented by presidents Neśtor Kirchner (2003-07) and Cristina Fernańdez de Kirchner (2007-15).
Approached from an institutional perspective, the argument is that Brazilian CCT programs have been more successful in their implementation, reach to targeted social sectors, and outcomes than the Argentine ones. The difference lies not in the programs’ design but in a set of conditions related to the federal structures of each country. In Brazil, CCT programs designed at the national level have succeeded because they sidestep control by provincial governors and actively involve municipal participation. In contrast, the Argentine programs remain more limited in their reach because of the power and mediation of provincial governors.
According to Fenwick, this outcome is the result of three interrelated factors: constitutional recognition of municipal power and autonomy, fiscal rules and constraints at subnational levels, and the type of majoritarianism inherent in each democratic system. Thus, in Brazil, constitutionally recognized municipalities enjoy more autonomy from provincial power and have political and fiscal motivations to ally with the federal government within a consensual democratic system in order to advance CCT programs. In Argentina, municipalities cannot count on the same constitutional recognition and remain politically and fiscally dependent upon provincial governments within a majoritarian system of democracy. In this, case, CCT programs are more effectively controlled by provincial governors and brokers in a system in which the governing ability of the national government depends on its capacity to maintain legislative majorities and dominate at the subnational level.
The book's historically grounded and institutionally oriented analysis dismisses simplistic generalizations about CCT programs, government of the so-called “left-tide” of the 2000s, and over-broad positive or negative views regarding Latin American populism. The analytical disaggregation of the subnational level in provinces/states and municipalities adds nuance in revealing accommodations, negotiations, and conflicts at the state level. Moreover, the book offers excellent comparative perspectives with other countries in Latin American countries, and beyond, where CCT programs have been implemented in very different contexts.
In the Argentine case, though, Fenwick's institutional approach does not fully extract the deeper transformations of politics in the 2000s. The political and economic crisis of 2001–02 represented not only the collapse of the traditional two-party system but also a profound change in the Peronist party itself. Therefore, the administrations of Kirchner and Fernańdez de Kirchner operated in a new and complex political environment characterized by party volatility and fragmentation. While this accentuated the role of provincial and party brokers as noted by Fenwick, new Argentine social movements such as the piqueteros and unemployed organizations acquired far greater political weight, which was felt in the disputes surrounding CCTs and other poverty-alleviating programs, a clear difference from the Brazilian model. This shift was not only a change within the institutional framework of Argentina, but rather a significant change in the institutional framework in which CCT programs themselves are designed and operate. This change is not emphasized enough in the analysis.
In summary, Fenwick provides a solid analysis and a theoretical framework of great comparative value. Her insights on the institutional, historical, and political context of CCT programs are of interest not only to scholars and the general public but also to those involved in the design and implementation of such programs who are concerned with maximizing their impact.
