The conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme Bolsa Família (Family Allowance), introduced in Brazil in 2003, is one of the largest such programmes in the world. Bolsa Família has played a role in the recent reduction of poverty and income inequality in Brazil. But what has been its impact on democracy? An assumption in the literature on social policy, derived from the European experience, is that targeted programmes such as Bolsa Família divide citizens, erode trust between citizens and between citizens and the state, and weaken democracy. This article challenges that assumption, showing that there is considerable evidence that Bolsa Família has strengthened the citizenship rights of the poor and enhanced democracy. The Brazilian experience suggests that, in highly unequal developing countries under conditions of 21st-century capitalism, the argument that targeted social programmes will inevitably undermine democracy is incorrect. Keywords: Brazil; democracy; citizenship; poverty; inequality; social policy; CCTs IntroductionThe Programa Bolsa Família (PBF) is one of the largest conditional cash transfer programmes in the world. The result of a fusion and expansion of existing programmes and begun in 2003 in the first year of the presidency of Luíz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva (2003-10), PBF now includes 13.8 million families comprising 49.6 million people, or 26% of Brazil's population. The programme reaches beneficiaries in 99.7% of the 5570 counties (municípios) of Brazil.

The role of ideas has been neglected, in comparison with the role of interests and institutions, in the literature on neoliberal reform in Latin America. While ideas were not the primary cause of neoliberal reform, their development, articulation, and dissemination are a significant part of the story of the rise and fall of the "Washington Consensus." The neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s lost credibility and capacity to provide politically feasible policy guidelines because it was based on an elitist, exclusionary pact among small groups of experts and elites representing the interests of transnational capital. Only by understanding the origins and limitations of the ideas behind neoliberal reform can a new, more inclusive economic model for Latin America be created.

No abstract

Comparative studies often highlight the negative effects of federalism for welfare state expansion. We examine Brazil and India, which have both enhanced their welfare effort despite political fragmentation. We argue that federalism's effects must be seen together with degrees of party system nationalisation. In Brazil, new social policies have reinforced a move towards greater party system nationalisation. Control over anti-poverty programmes has been recentralised leading to more even outcomes. In India, while the central government also introduced new social policies, expansion has been filtered by political regionalisation. The effectiveness of social provision relies on state governments, producing substantial territorial differentiation.

Patrimonialism is ubiquitous in the analysis of the state in Brazil, a country in which the concept has its own distinctive genealogy. However, patrimonialism has been subject to severe conceptual stretching, limiting its usefulness in comparative analysis. Furthermore, the “commanding heights” of the federal bureaucracy have become more universalistic and merit-based and less patrimonial over the past few years. Patrimonialism is therefore best viewed as one logic among many operating in the Brazilian state. O patrimonialismo permeia a análise do Estado no Brazil, país onde o conceito possui uma genealogia própria. Contudo, o patrimonialismo tem sido objeto de certa ampliação conceitual, o que limita sua utilidade numa análise comparativa. Ademais, nos últimos anos, os altos comandos da burocracia federal se têm tornado mais universalistas e meritocráticos, além de menos patrimonialistas. Nesse contexto, o conceito pode ser visto como mais uma lógica entre várias que atuam no Estado brasileiro.