Paper short abstract:

In this paper I discuss the attributions of responsibility to poor people in two Chilean CCT programmes. The causes of poverty are not relevant and it seems that poor people are not blamed; however, they have the responsibility of solving their detrimental situation, under the rhetoric of co-responsibility.

Paper long abstract:

The present paper examines the attributions of responsibility to poor people in two Chilean Conditional Cash Transfer policies -Solidarity Chile and Family Ethical Income- based on data collected from interviews to policy makers and official documents, as part of my doctoral research. Despite these programmes were designed by different political coalitions, both rely on a characterization of the poor people and a diagnosis about the role of the state, but the causes of poverty situation are not considered nor even discussed. Under their view, the causes of poverty are not relevant, poor people appear not to be blamed for their situation, and are mainly perceived as passive. Yet, the families in poverty must solve their situation, under the rhetoric of co-responsibility. The state is the other responsible one, but if the family's responsibility is similar in both programmes, the state role is different. In Solidarity Chile poor families have to be engaged with the public programmes and benefits, therefore the state is seen as a key provider of welfare and families have to learn how to use those benefits and improve their situation. In Family Ethical Income, the state should teach the poor families how to earn their income autonomously and once they achieve this, state retires from the provision of welfare. Despite the differences, both programmes share an understanding of poverty in which poor families have to overcome the inadequacies (or failings) to engage in the public benefits or labour market.