A/HRC/11/9 page 15 incorporated without giving serious consideration to the causes that restrict the participation of vulnerable groups, such as existing power asymmetries between groups in this society. This runs the risk of producing results that are the opposite of those desired, as it may perpetuate, rather than eliminate, abuses of power by local elites and the exclusion of marginalized groups, especially women. Therefore, participation should be understood in a broad sense. For example, it should include not only beneficiaries but also civil society organizations that can play a role in advocating the rights of the beneficiaries and compensating for the asymmetry of power. E. Conditional versus unconditional cash transfer programmes 55. “Conditional cash transfer” programmes (CCTPs) are specific types of CTPs that pay cash to beneficiaries in exchange for a commitment on the part of the beneficiary to do something in return - such as enrol their children in school, participate in health programmes or meet nutrition objectives. Based on the experience of some Latin American and South Asian countries, some international development agencies and financial institutions, including the World Bank, are encouraging more countries to establish conditional CTPs. 56. There is currently a lack of sufficient evidence as to the respective costs and benefits of conditional versus unconditional CTPs. There is a debate as to whether attaching conditions to cash transfers increases the ability of CTPs to reduce poverty and improve the enjoyment of other human rights, for example by improving literacy or infant mortality rates. 57. There are three predominant arguments in support of CCTPs. First, they are necessary to influence the behaviour and attitudes of the targeted beneficiaries. This argument is based upon the assumption that, in the absence of conditionalities, beneficiaries would not make the same investment in health or education. Second, CCTPs are more likely to be perceived as benefiting the “deserving poor”, and therefore are able to gain wider political support. Finally, CCTPs contribute to the self-esteem and sense of autonomy of the beneficiaries as they are not receiving “something for nothing”. In addition, some advocates argue that by fostering the demand for health and education services, CCTPs strengthen human capital and thus in the long term contribute to breaking the intergenerational reproduction of poverty. 58. There are also strong arguments against conditionalities. Critics indicate that there is no sound social and economic evidence about the extent to which conditions are necessary to achieve the desired result, so that it is possible that the same improvements would be achieved without them. The imposition of conditions is also questioned on the basis of the potential negative impact of conditionalities in the absence of proper investment in the supply side of public services. This is particularly true for low-income countries, countries devastated by war or in middle-income countries where in some regions services are non-existent, inaccessible or of poor quality. Another argument is the fact that conditionalities involve additional monitoring and administration costs, as well as private costs on the beneficiaries to comply with them. Evidence suggests that in the context of low-income countries, resources may be better spent in extending existing social services rather than on the administrative costs associated with monitoring compliance with conditionalities. It is also argued that the imposition of conditions may unnecessarily undermine the individual’s autonomy and assume that the poor cannot make rational choices that improve their livelihoods.