Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:15:23.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships in the Implementation of Conditional Cash Transfers: The Provision of Health in the Oportunidades-Prospera Programme in Puebla, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2020

Viviana Ramírez
Viviana Ramírez*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations and Political Science, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Mexico E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores interactions between the front-line officers and recipients of Oportunidades-Prospera, a conditional cash transfer (CCT) in Mexico. Like other CCTs, Oportunidades-Prospera provided monetary transfers to families with the requirement of following certain conditions, including receiving preventive healthcare and workshops. This produced constant and compulsory physician-recipient interactions. This article examines these through observations of programme delivery and interviews with physicians at health centres of two localities of Puebla. The results show that officers’ strategies of implementation and attitudes towards recipients were influenced by the programme’s use of health services as conditionalities, promoting a relationship of authority and obedience. This, however, was exacerbated by the officer’s job position. Those with a permanent contract systematically fostered authoritarian interactions compared to officers with temporary contracts. Ultimately, this study reveals factors that influence officer-recipient relationships in CCTs and their centrality for programme delivery and for the success of social policies more broadly.

Keywords

Policy implementationstreet-level bureaucratsfront-line officersconditional cash transfersOportunidades-Prospera
Type
Article
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 400 - 417
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adato, M. (2000) The Impact of PROGRESA on Community Social Relationships, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
Adato, M., Coady, D. and Ruel, M. (2000) An Operations Evaluation of PROGRESA from the Perspective of Beneficiaries, Promotoras, School Directors, and Health Staff, Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
Adato, M. and Hoddinott, J. (2007) Conditional Cash Transfer Programs a “Magic Bullet” for Reducing Poverty?, Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Agudo Sanchíz, A. (2012) The Social Production of Conditional Cash Transfers’ Impacts, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth, 172.Google Scholar
Arnold, C., Conway, T. and Greenslade, M. (2011) Cash Transfers Literature Review, London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
Barber, S. L. and Gertler, P. J. (2010) ‘Empowering women: how Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme raised prenatal care quality and birth weight’, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2, 1, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastagli, F., Hagen-Zanker, J., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G. and Schmidt, T. (2019) ‘The impact of cash transfers: a review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 3, 569-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2008) ‘Accountability in street-level organizations’, International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 3, 317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, P. (2012) Documento compilatorio de la Evaluación Externa 2007-2008 del Programa Oportunidades, Secretaría de Desarrollo Social – Coordinación Nacional del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades.Google Scholar
Carausan, M. (2015) ‘Street-level bureaucrats: theoretical framework’, in Boldea, I. (ed.), Discourse as a Form of Multiculturalism in Literature and Communication, Tirgu Mures: Arhipelag XXI.Google Scholar
Castro, R. (2014) ‘Génesis y práctica del habitus médico autoritario en México’, Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 76, 2, 167-97.Google Scholar
Checkland, K. (2004) ‘National service frameworks and UK general practitioners: street-level bureaucrats at work?’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 26, 7, 951–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CONAPRED (2011) National Survey on Discrimination in Mexico, Enadis 2010 Overall Results, México, D.F.: Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación.Google Scholar
CONEVAL (2011) Informe de la Evaluación Específica de Desempeño 2010-2011, México, D.F.: Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
Cookson, T. P. (2018) Unjust Conditions. Women’s Work and the Hidden Cost of Cash Transfer Programs, Oakland: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, R. and Ayee, J. (2006) ‘Urban service partnerships, ‘street-level bureaucrats’ and environmental sanitation in Kumasi and Accra, Ghana: coping with organisational change in the public bureaucracy’, Development Policy Review, 24, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, K. (2011) “Street-level bureaucracy’ revisited: the changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England’, Social Policy and Administration, 45, 3, 221-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ENADIS (2017) National Survey on Discrimination in Mexico, Ciudad de México: National Council to Prevent Discrimination.Google Scholar
Erasmus, E. (2014) ‘The use of street-level bureaucracy theory in health policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-ethnographic synthesis’, Health Policy and Planning, 29, 3, iii70–iii78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Escobar Latapí, A. (2000) ‘Progresa y el bienestar de las familias. Los hallazgos’, in Escobar Latapí, A. and González de la Rocha, M. (eds.), Logros y Retos: Una evaluación Cualitativa de Progresa en México, México D.F.: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
Escobar Latapí, A. and González de la Rocha, M. (eds.) (2000) Evaluación de Resultados del Programa de Educación, Salud y Alimentación. Logros y Retos: Una Evaluación Cualitativa de Progresa en México, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS).Google Scholar
Eyben, R. (2006) The Power of Labelling in Development Practice, Institute of Development Studies, 28.Google Scholar
Finlay, S. and Sandall, J. (2009) ‘“Someone is rooting for you”: continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare’, Social Science and Medicine, 69, 8, 1228-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fochsen, G., Deshpande, K. and Thorson, A. (2006) ‘Power imbalance and consumerism in the doctor-patient relationship: health care providers’ experiences of patient encounters in a rural district in India’, Qualitative Health Research, 16, 9, 1236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaede, B. M. (2016) ‘Doctors as street-level bureaucrats in a rural hospital in South Africa’, Journal of Rural and Remote Health 16, 3461, 1-9.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. M. (ed.) (1997) Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development, New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, J. P., Leroy, J., López Ridaura, R., DeMaria, L., Walker, D., Campuzano, J. C. and Bertozzi, S. (2008) ‘Evaluación de la calidad de los servicios de atención a la salud asignados a la población beneficiaria de Oportunidades’, in Evaluación externa del Programa Oportunidades 2008. A diez años de intervención en zonas rurales (1997-2007). Tomo II, El reto de la calidad de los servicios: resultados en salud y nutrición, México D.F.: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
Hagen-Zanker, J., Bastagli, F., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G. and Schmidt, T. (2016) Understanding the Impact of Cash Transfers: The Evidence, ODI Briefing, Overseas Development Institute (London), www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/10748.pdf [accessed 16.08.2020].Google Scholar
Henderson, A. C. and Pandey, S. K. (2013) ‘Leadership in street-level bureaucracy: an exploratory study of supervisor-worker interactions in emergency medical services’, International Review on Public Administration, 18, 1, 7-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. and Condon, L. (2016) ‘Street-level bureaucracy and policy implementation in community public health nursing: a qualitative study of the experiences of student and novice health visitors’, Primary Health Care Research and Development, 17, 586-98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hupe, P. L. and Buffat, A. (2014) ‘A public service gap: capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy’, Public Management Review, 16, 4, 548–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, L. E. F. (2019) ‘Negotiated discretion: redressing the neglect of negotiation in ‘street-level bureaucracy”, Symbolic Interaction, 42, 4, 513-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaler, A. and Watkins, S. (2001) ‘Disobedient distributors: street-level bureaucrats and would-be patrons in community-based family planning programs in rural Kenya’, Studies in Family Planning, 32, 3, 254-69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, S. (2006) Progress Against Poverty: Sustaining Mexico’s Progresa-Oportunidades Program, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980/2010) Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (30th anniversary expanded edn), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
MacAuslan, I. and Riemenschneider, N. (2011) ‘Richer but resented: what do cash transfers do to social relations?’, IDS Bulletin, 42, 6, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandlik, M. A., Glynn, M. and Hyde, K. (2014) ‘Client contribution to professional service delivery: implications for relationship quality’, New Zealand Journal of Applied Business Research, 12, 1, 19–34.Google Scholar
Martínez Martínez, O. A. (2011) ‘La influencia de la condicionalidad de recursos de un programa social en la asistencia a consultas médicas. el caso del programa Oportunidades de México’, Revista de Ciencias Sociales de La Universidad Iberoamericana, 11, 83–97.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counsellors, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molyneux, M. (2006) ‘Mothers at the service of the new poverty agenda: Progresa/Oportunidades, Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme’, Social Policy and Administration, 40, 4, 425-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncrieffe, J. and Eyben, R. (eds.) (2007) The Power of Labelling: How People are Categorized and why it Matters, London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
OECD (2014) Estadísticas de la OCDE sobre la salud 2014 México en comparación, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-MEXICO-2014-in-Spanish.pdf [accessed 16.08.2020].Google Scholar
Ramírez, V. (2016) ‘CCTs through a wellbeing lens: the importance of the relationship between front-line officers and participants in the Oportunidades/Prospera programme in Mexico’, Social Policy and Society, 15, 3, 451–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramírez, V. (forthcoming) Relational Wellbeing in Policy Implementation in Mexico: Conditional Cash Transfers, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, G. (2009) ‘Living in poverty: an analysis of health, disease and care processes among rural indigenous households’, in External Evaluation of Oportunidades 2008. 1997-2007: 10 Years of Intervention in Rural Areas. (Vol. 2), México D.F.: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
Saucedo, O. A. (2013) ‘The gendered reading of conditionality in antipoverty programmes: unintended effects on Mexican rural households’ interactions with public health institutions’, Bulletin of Latin American Research, 32, 1, 61–77.Google Scholar
Simmons, R. and Elias, C. (1994) ‘The study of client-provider interactions: a review of methodological issues’, Studies in Family Planning, 25, 1, 1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoufias, E. (2005) PORGRESA y sus efectos sobre el bienestar de las familias rurales en México, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Informe de investigación No.39.Google Scholar
Smith-Oka, V. (2014) ‘Fallen uterus: social suffering, bodily vigor, and social support among women in rural Mexico, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 28, 1, 105–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith-Oka, V. (2015) ‘Microaggressions and the reproduction of social inequalities in medical encounters in Mexico’, Social Science and Medicine, 143, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Székely, M. (2006) Un nuevo rostro en el espejo: percepciones sobre la discriminación y la cohesión social en México, Naciones Unidas, CEPAL, Div. de Desarrollo Social.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (2012) Discourse Analysis – What Speakers do in Conversation, Linguistic Society of America, http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation [accessed 16.08.2020].Google Scholar
Walker, L. and Gilson, L. (2004) ‘“We are bitter but we are satisfied”: nurses as street-level bureaucrats in South Africa’, Social Science and Medicine, 59, 1251-61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, G. D. (ed.) (1985) Labelling in Development Policy: Essays in Honour of Bernard Schaffer, London, The Hague: Sage Publications, Institute of Social Studies.Google Scholar