RESUMO
Conditional cash transfer (CCT) is a compelling policy alternative for reducing poverty and improving health, and its effectiveness is promising. CCT programmes have been widely deployed across geographical, economic and political contexts, but not without contestation. Critics argue that CCTs may result in infringements on freedom and dignity, gender discrimination and disempowerment and power imbalances between programme providers and beneficiaries. In this analysis, we aim to identify the ethical concepts applicable to CCTs and to contextualize these by mapping the tensions of the debate, allowing us to understand the separate contributions as parts of a larger whole. We searched a range of databases for records on public health CCT. Strategies were last run in January 2017. We included 31 dialectical articles deliberating the ethics of CCTs and applied a meta-ethnographic approach. We identified 22 distinct ethical concepts. By analysing and mapping the tensions in the discourse, the following four strands of debate emerged: (1) responsibility for poverty and health: personal vs public duty, (2) power balance: autonomy vs paternalism, (3) social justice: empowerment vs oppression and (4) marketization of human behaviour and health: 'fair trade' vs moral corruption. The debate shed light on the ethical ideals, principles and doctrines underpinning CCT. These were consistent with a market-oriented liberal welfare regime ideal: privatization of public responsibilities; a selective rather than a universal approach; empowerment by individual entrepreneurship; marketization of health with a conception of human beings as utility maximizing creatures; and limited acknowledgement of the role of structural injustices in poverty and health. Identification of key tensions in the public health ethics debate may expose underpinning ideological logics of health and social programmes that may be at odds with public values and contemporary political priorities. Decisions about CCTs should therefore not be considered a technical exercise, but a context-dependent process requiring transparent, informed and deliberative decision-making.
