Planned Differences: Argentina’s Universal Child Allowance from a human rights perspective

Horacio Javier Etchichury
{"title":"Planned Differences: Argentina’s Universal Child Allowance from a human rights perspective","authors":"Horacio Javier Etchichury","doi":"10.31207/IH.V7I0.200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article intends to analyze Universal Child Allowance (UCA)—a large-scale conditional cash transfer (CCT) program in Argentina—from a human rights and constitutional perspective. Conditions required in the UCA system—which covers informal and unemployed workers—are compared to those established in family allowances, the contributory program created for registered workers. These differences in treatment are analyzed in connection with the right to equal treatment, taking into account applicable legal materials, including caselaw and theoretical contributions. After describing CCT programs in general and the specific features of UCA, and outlining Argentina’s constitutional and human rights framework, the article describes the specific conditions—maximum income, nationality, maximum number of covered children—applied only to informal and unregistered workers included in the UCA program. Compared to family allowances beneficiaries, workers under UCA have a much lower maximum wage limit to be eligible, and their children must fulfill nationality or legal residence requirements not applicable under the family allowances system. UCA covers only up to five children per family, while family allowances are paid to every child in formal workers’ families, with no restrictions. The article concludes that these planned differences in treatment are not admissible under Argentina’s human rights obligations and constitutional setting. The article also advocates a human rights-based design for social policies, in order to ensure consistency with Argentina’s Constitution and international obligations.","PeriodicalId":138049,"journal":{"name":"Ius Humani. Law Journal","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Humani. Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31207/IH.V7I0.200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article intends to analyze Universal Child Allowance (UCA)—a large-scale conditional cash transfer (CCT) program in Argentina—from a human rights and constitutional perspective. Conditions required in the UCA system—which covers informal and unemployed workers—are compared to those established in family allowances, the contributory program created for registered workers. These differences in treatment are analyzed in connection with the right to equal treatment, taking into account applicable legal materials, including caselaw and theoretical contributions. After describing CCT programs in general and the specific features of UCA, and outlining Argentina’s constitutional and human rights framework, the article describes the specific conditions—maximum income, nationality, maximum number of covered children—applied only to informal and unregistered workers included in the UCA program. Compared to family allowances beneficiaries, workers under UCA have a much lower maximum wage limit to be eligible, and their children must fulfill nationality or legal residence requirements not applicable under the family allowances system. UCA covers only up to five children per family, while family allowances are paid to every child in formal workers’ families, with no restrictions. The article concludes that these planned differences in treatment are not admissible under Argentina’s human rights obligations and constitutional setting. The article also advocates a human rights-based design for social policies, in order to ensure consistency with Argentina’s Constitution and international obligations.
有计划的差异:从人权的角度看阿根廷的普遍儿童津贴
本文试图从人权和宪法的角度分析普遍儿童津贴(UCA)——阿根廷的一项大规模有条件现金转移支付(CCT)计划。UCA系统(涵盖非正式和失业工人)所要求的条件与家庭津贴(为注册工人设立的缴费计划)所规定的条件进行了比较。考虑到适用的法律材料,包括判例法和理论贡献,将这些待遇差异与平等待遇权利联系起来进行分析。在描述了有条件现金援助项目的总体情况和UCA的具体特点,并概述了阿根廷的宪法和人权框架之后,本文描述了具体条件——最高收入、国籍、覆盖儿童的最大数量——这些条件仅适用于UCA项目中包括的非正式和未注册工人。与家庭津贴受益人相比,“共同生活津贴”受益人的最高工资限额要低得多,而他们的子女必须符合家庭津贴制度不适用的国籍或合法居留要求。UCA只覆盖每个家庭最多五个孩子,而家庭津贴则向正式工人家庭的每个孩子支付,没有任何限制。该条的结论是,根据阿根廷的人权义务和宪法规定,这些有计划的待遇差别是不可接受的。该条还提倡以人权为基础设计社会政策,以确保符合阿根廷宪法和国际义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信