Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious and Abominable? The Case Against Conditional Cash Transfers
In 1792, the first consumer boycott was organised to protest against the inhumane treatment of slaves in
the production of sugar in the West Indies. In his comic novel of the time, Melincourt, Thomas Love
Peacock (1817) wrote of the trade in sugar that it was “economically superfluous, physically pernicious,
morally atrocious and politically abominable”. Much the same could be said of ‘Conditional Cash Transfers’ (CCTs) today.
Personal dignity and autonomy are at the very foundation of human rights, and are inextricably linked to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. As a result, respect for the inherent dignity of all must inform all public policies. State agents, private service providers and individuals must avoid stigmatization and prejudice, and recognize and support the […]