Between Poor Relief and Human Capital Investments – Paradoxes in Hybrid Social Assistance

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) are often being promoted for their simultaneous advantages of short‐term income protection and long‐term human capital investments. Yet, existing evaluations have largely failed to test the underlying programme theory, and few empirical case studies have explored inherent contradictions and ambiguous consequences of this hybrid approach. To further understand the programmes' social policy implications, this study identifies and analyzes such ambiguities and paradoxical consequences in the case of Uruguay's CCT‐programme, Asignaciones Familiares (AFAM). Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with beneficiaries and members of the commission who designed the programme, this study reveals major paradoxes in AFAM's design and implementation caused by various endogenous factors. Relevant to social policy in general, and CCT‐evaluations in particular, findings also indicate that the hybrid social assistance approach may have perverse effects on the programme's twin objectives.