Conditional cash transfer programs, an innovation in social welfare administration, have received considerable acclaim as a means of enhancing human capital and reducing leakage of public resources through corruption. While numerous studies examine the effects of the program on human capital indicators in Mexico and various other countries that have adopted the approach, little is known about the effects of these programs on levels of corruption and on political life more generally. Using data from Transparency International Mexico, the Federal Register of Civil Society Organizations, and the national census, this paper analyzes whether conditional cash transfers have any bearing on corruption but also on two other aspects of political life argued to affect government probity in the long term: the density of civil society organizations and the empowerment of women as indicated by levels of active involvement in civil society. The conclusions are encouraging with respect to reducing corruption but rather dismal regarding the effects on civil society and the empowerment of women.
Adato, M. ( 2004). El impacto de Progresa sobre las relaciones sociales en la comunidad (The impact of Progresa on social relations in the community) . Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
2.
Alolo, N.A. ( 2007). Fighting public sector corruption in Ghana: Does gender matter? In S. Bracking (Ed.), Corruption and development: The anti-corruption campaigns (pp. 205-220). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
3.
Barber, S.L., & Gertler, P.J. ( 2009). Empowering women to obtain high quality care: Evidence from an evaluation of Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme. Health Policy and Planning, 24, 18-25.
4.
Blacklock, C., & Macdonald, L. ( 2000). Women and citizenship in Mexico and Guatemala. In S. M. Rai (Ed.), International perspectives on gender and democratization (pp. 19-40). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
5.
Bradshaw, S. ( 2008). From structural adjustment to social adjustment: A gendered analysis of conditional cash transfer programmes in Mexico and Nicaragua. Global Social Policy, 8, 188-206.
6.
Bruhn, K. ( 1996). Social spending and political support: The "lessons" of the national solidarity programme in Mexico. Comparative Politics, 28, 151-177.
7.
Castro, C. ( 2005). Federal law for the promotion of civil society organizations in Mexico. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 7(2). Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.icnl.org/KNOWLEDGE/IJNL/vol7iss2/special_5.htm
8.
De La O, A.L. ( 2008). Do poverty relief funds affect electoral behavior? Evidence from a randomized experiment in Mexico. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.ipeg.org.uk/events/field_experiments/Documents/delao_progresa_manchester.pdf
9.
Diaz-Cayeros, A., Estévez, F., & Magaloni, B. ( 2006). Strategies of vote buying: Poverty, democracy and social transfers in Mexico. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.stanford.edu/~albertod/buyingvotes/buyingvotes.html
10.
Djebbari, H., & Smith, J. ( 2008). Heterogeneous impacts in PROGRESA. Journal of Econometrics, 145, 64-80.
11.
Dollar, D., Fisman, S., & Gatti, R. ( 1999). Are women really the "fairer" sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 46, 423-429.
12.
Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. ( 1986). Gender and helping behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin , 100, 283-308.
13.
Fox, J. ( 1994). The difficult transition from clientelism to citizenship: Lessons from Mexico. World Politics, 46, 151-184.
14.
Fox, J. ( 1996). How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social capital in rural Mexico. World Development, 24, 1089-1103.
15.
Garay, C. ( 2009). Social policy and collective action: Unemployed workers, community associations, and protest in Argentina. Politics & Society, 35, 301-328.
16.
Gertler, P. ( 2004). Do conditional cash transfers improve child health? Evidences from PROGRESA’s control randomized experiment. American Economic Review, 94, 336-341.
17.
Goertzel, T.G. ( 1983). That gender gap: Sex, family income, and political opinions in the early 1980s. Journal of Political and Military Sociology , 11, 209-222.
18.
Goetz, A.M. ( 2007). Political cleaners: Women as the new anti-corruption force? Development and Change, 38, 87-105.
19.
Grimes, M. ( 2008a). Contestation or complicity: Civil society as antidote or accessory to political corruption (QoG Working Paper Series 2008:8). Gothenburg, Sweden: The QoG Institute.
20.
Grimes, M. ( 2008b). The conditions of successful civil society involvement in combating corruption: A survey of case study evidence (QoG Working Paper Series 2008:22). Gothenburg, Sweden: The QoG Institute.
21.
Hevia de la Jara, F. ( 2007). Between individual and collective action: Citizen participation and public oversight in Mexico’s Oportunidades programme. IDS Bulletin, 38(6), 64-72.
22.
Hunter, W., & Power, T. ( 2007). Rewarding Lula: Executive power, social policy, and the Brazilian elections of 2006. Latin American Politics and Society , 49, 1-30.
23.
Johansson, L. ( 2008). Kvinnor och corruption. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. ( 2005). Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 339-365.
25.
Domínguez, J. I.,Lawson, C, & Moreno, A. (Eds.). (2007). The Mexico 2006 panel study: Wave 1-3. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/mexico06
26.
Levy, S. ( 2006). Progress against poverty: Sustaining Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
Lomelí, E.V. ( 2008). Conditional cash transfers as social policy in Latin America: An assessment of their contributions and limitations. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 475-99.
28.
Mettler, S., & Soss, J. ( 2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship . Perspectives on Politics, 2, 55-73.
29.
Mettler, S., & Welch, E. ( 2004). Civic generation: Policy feedback effects of the G.I. Bill on political involvement over the life course. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 497-518.
30.
Molinar, J., & Weldon, J. ( 1994). Electoral determinants and consequences of national solidarity . In W. Cornelius, A. L. Craig, & J. Fox (Eds.). Transforming state-society relations in Mexico: The national solidarity strategy (pp. 124-141). San Diego: University of California, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
31.
Molyneux, M. ( 2006). Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, Mexico’s conditional transfer programme. Social Policy & Administration, 40, 425-449.
32.
Rocha Menocal, A. ( 2001). Do old habits die hard? A statistical exploration of the politicisation of Progresa, Mexico’s latest federal poverty-alleviation programme, under the Zedillo administration. Journal of Latin American Studies, 33, 513-538.
33.
Rothstein, B. & Teorell, J. ( 2008). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 21, 165-190.
34.
Szwarcberg, M. ( 2008, April). Counting heads and votes: Authoritarian and democratic strategies of electoral mobilization in Argentina. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
35.
Stecklov, G., Winters, P., Stampini, M., & Davis, B. ( 2005). Do conditional cash transfers influence migration? A study using experimental data from the Mexican Progresa program. Demography, 42, 769-790.
36.
Soss, J. ( 1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. America Political Science Review, 93, 363-380.
37.
Sung, H.-E. ( 2003). Fairer sex or fairer system? Gender and corruption revisited . Social Forces, 82, 703-723.
38.
Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. ( 2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64, 25-55.
39.
Tabbush, C. ( 2009). Is Latin America sacrificing poor women in the name of social integration?Global Social Policy, 9, 29-32.
Transparency Mexico. (2006). Índice nacional de corrupción y buen gobierno. Resultados de 2001, 2003, 2005 (National Index of Corruption and Good Government. Results from 2001, 2003, 2005).
42.
Treisman, D. ( 2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211-44.
43.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. ( 1990). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In K. Schweers Cook & M. Levi (Eds.), The limits of rationality (pp. 90-131). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
44.
Wichowsky, A., & Moynihan, D. ( 2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 68, 908-920.
