Journal Article

IDS Bulletin 38.3

Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious and Abominable? The Case Against Conditional Cash Transfers

Published on 1 May 2007

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 hiscomic 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.

Related Content

IDS Bulletin 38.3

Cite this publication

Freeland, N. (2007) Superfluous, Pernicious, Atrocious and Abominable? The Case Against Conditional Cash Transfers. IDS Bulletin 38(3): 75-78

Authors

Nicholas Freeland

Publication details

authors
Freeland, Nicholas
journal
IDS Bulletin, volume 38, issue 3
doi
10.1111/j.1759-5436.2007.tb00382.x
language
English

Share

Related content

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.