A particularly sensitive aspect of the social program implementation process lies in the role played by frontline professionals—the "street-level bureaucrats" (hereafter SLB). They interpret, translate, and ultimately redesign public policy guidelines on the ground. Despite the importance of their role, these professionals are often overlooked in policy design and are rarely the focus of policy analysis or evaluation.

International evidence suggests that the first line of policy implementation constitutes a prolific instance for the use of professional discretion and the development of critical judgment, which has the potential to shape an "underground morality" (Stout, 2018) or a more or less hidden agenda of professional resistance (Barnes and Prior, 2009) that significantly affects the processes and outcomes of social programs (Mik-Meyer and Villadsen, 2013; Tummers, 2013, Weinberg and Banks, 2019).

The position of professionals in policy implementation is highly complex and contradictory (Lipsky, 1980). They intervene in multidimensional problems that seem impossible to solve (“wicked” problems) (Thomas et al., 2018) and represent “the face of the State to the citizens” (Mik-Meyer and Villadsen, 2013). They face countless controversies and tensions: they must address issues of policy legitimacy in the territories where they are implemented; demands inherent to the intervention in terms of the tools and skills required to work with users; requirements stemming from agreements with the entities that fund the intervention; and organizational demands arising from the vision and mission of the institutions that directly employ them (Schoongut-Grollmus, 2017). Added to this is the tension inherent in the very idea of ​​professional intervention, as a device or framework that oscillates between the aspirations to improve the living conditions of users and the logics of control (Campana, 2017); and additionally, the internal or subjective tensions faced by professionals on the front line, related to their biographical trajectories, expectations of professional development and consumption (Iturrieta, 2017); their emotional supports, beliefs and ethical-political horizons (Bilbao et al., 2018), both individual and institutional, which shapes political cultures of intervention (Ortega-Senet, 2017).

Within this framework, where structural conditions such as political and institutional frameworks intersect—including the operational conditions of policy and the working conditions of the professionals who implement it on the front lines—and subjective dimensions such as biographical processes, professional trajectories, and ethical and political positions, the process of professional subjectivation unfolds. Like all processes of subjectivation, we understand this as "the way in which a human being becomes a subject" (Foucault, 1988: 3). Thus, we have a professional who simultaneously produces themselves as a self and transcends themselves. Professional subjectivation, in the words of Tassin (2012), is configured from what they are supposed to be, what they wish to be, and what is demanded of them, along with the material conditions they possess to "be" all of that.

Although they face difficult working conditions and dilemmas, these professionals are essential for access to rights, especially for the poorest populations (Lipsky, 1980; Dubois, 1999). They represent the State and deliver essential public services, such as health, education, security, and social assistance, among others, generating a high level of dependence on the State—for the implementation of public policies—and on citizens—for access to social rights.

Studies show that the work of these professionals is heavily influenced by their social positions (Harrits & Moller, 2014) and by how they classify and judge citizens and their value (Harrits & Moller, 2013; Tummers & Jilke, 2018; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). Frontline work is highly interactive (Dubois, 1999), and this interaction can lead to an unequal distribution of services, creating the potential to either reduce or perpetuate inequalities (Lotta & Pires, 2019).

While this topic has received little attention in the literature from the Global North, it is central to understanding Latin American contexts. This is because, in general, social policies in these contexts are designed to address structural inequalities (ethnicity and race, gender, and region, for example). However, due to various factors, the very implementation of these policies can end up generating or reinforcing pre-existing inequalities (Pires, 2019). These factors are compounded by low trust in the state (Peeters, 2020); clientelism; territories with high levels of violence (Spink et al., 2021); policies with heavy administrative burdens (Peeters, 2020); and information inequalities (Auyero, 2011). These factors significantly impact the relationship between citizens and the state. Thus, precarious social protection systems, practices of political clientelism, territories affected by institutional and symbolic violence, territorial inequalities (deficits of material and professional resources) that impact what street-level bureaucrats can do, administrative demands that reproduce stigmas and the social position of users (administrative burdens), among others, are important factors for understanding the implementation of public policies in unequal contexts. Given these characteristics common to Latin American countries, a priority research agenda should focus on these bureaucracies at the forefront of state activity and their role in policy implementation and in the transformation or reproduction of inequalities in the Latin American context.

Studies on grassroots bureaucrats are well-developed in Anglo-Saxon countries. In this context, the work of Lipsky (1980) and Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2003) stands out. Through their research, they have provided relevant evidence for understanding the highly sensitive and crucial role of grassroots bureaucrats in the implementation of public policies. However, research produced in and situated within Latin America in this field is still in its early stages, and what little exists remains largely unrecognized in international discussions.

This proposal stems from an interest in generating knowledge about non-conforming economies (NCEs) based on the specific characteristics of our region, which are not, of course, included in the intellectual production of the Anglo-Saxon world. The question that guided the development of this proposal revolves around the unique characteristics of Latin America, and therefore, it is the result of observing the absences or silences regarding the influence of fundamental factors in the configuration of NCEs, such as social, political, economic, legal, and gender inequalities, among others, in the existing literature. In this sense, this proposal seeks to contribute situated understandings of NCEs and, from there, to support the daily work of those who implement public policies on the front lines. Hence, this proposal has both social and theoretical/intellectual relevance.

In terms of its social relevance, it is important to emphasize that understanding the tensions inherent in the practice of non-conformity education (NCE) in Latin America would allow for the development of guidelines, tools, and resources to improve the capacities of grassroots bureaucrats, while also advising or suggesting to governmental and non-governmental organizations a review of the operating conditions of these bureaucrats in each country. In the health, education, and social services sectors, for example, a large proportion of grassroots bureaucrats are women, which entails tensions associated with gender inequality. Furthermore, the precarious employment conditions of grassroots bureaucrats are reflected in unstable contracts, low wages, lack of social security, and consequently, they work in teams with significant staff turnover, hindering the consolidation of collective learning regarding implementation.

Understanding the inherent tensions of citizen-centered governance (NCG) within the context of inequality in Latin America would allow for a more refined capacity to suggest improvements to public policies designed to reduce inequalities in vulnerable contexts. These policies often not only fail to do so but also perpetuate inequalities through face-to-face interactions between street-level bureaucrats and citizens. Therefore, exploring NCG in Latin America, while acknowledging the accumulated work of researchers from various countries in the region—albeit still fragmented—will enable this Working Group to forge connections with governmental and non-governmental organizations. This will improve the implementation of social policies and, consequently, the relationship between citizens and the state—a crucial issue considering the deficits in civic engagement in the region and the crises of legitimacy facing states.

Regarding the theoretical or intellectual relevance of this proposal, it is worth highlighting that we have identified researchers with publications on non-conservative libraries (NCBs) in various Latin American countries—who comprise this Working Group—but that these publications generally have little connection to one another. In this sense, this proposal constitutes a first step toward identifying and mapping the accumulated knowledge or "situated" state of the art, and establishing a dense network of articulated knowledge production that allows for contrasting, providing feedback, and expanding existing literature, based on the specific characteristics of NCBs in Latin America. Therefore, we propose to move forward, starting from the identification of the existing state of the art in our region, toward comparative studies that allow us to identify the similarities and differences regarding the institutional arrangements within which NCBs are framed and the specific characteristics of NCBs in each country.