Our proposal is centrally anchored in the axis of "Structural Inequalities and Distributive Justice," adopting a perspective situated in the Global South that recognizes structural heterogeneity not as an "anomaly" or a "residue" of incomplete development, but as the constitutive and persistent feature of the economic and social formation of Latin America and the Caribbean (Pinto 1970, 1973; Prebisch 1949, 1986). Thinking from the Global South implies assuming that our societies do not follow a linear trajectory toward modernity as did the core countries, but rather that both regions inhabit mixed temporalities where diverse productive forms coexist and are articulated in a subordinate role to global capital. After more than a century and a half of modernization attempts, under various political ideologies, the region confirms the continued existence of an unequal productive matrix that, far from homogenizing, segments labor markets and limits social integration (Cortés and Salvia, 2019).

In the current context, we propose a renewed reading that engages this structuralist tradition in dialogue with the urgent challenges raised in the 11th Call for Papers. We identify that the matrix of historical inequality is now exacerbated by "reconfigurations of work and production models" that, under the promise of digitalization, deepen precarity. Platform capitalism in the region does not operate in a vacuum, but rather builds upon old class, ethnic-racial, and gender exclusions (Pla, Galeano Alfonso, and Salvia, 2024), challenging traditional categories of social protection and demanding distributive justice that considers the new morphologies of work. This economic dynamic directly strains the political field, placing it within the framework of "Contested Democracies." Distributive stagnation and the inability of states to sustain cohesive pacts have facilitated a shift toward political options that question the public sphere and the commons (Baldoni and Rosenberg, 2025). We observe a pendulum swing in the region where, after periods of expanding rights, cycles of social disenfranchisement emerge, weakening democratic legitimacy. Therefore, our analysis positions inequalities not only as an economic problem, but as the central corrosive factor affecting democratic coexistence in our countries.

Within this framework, our proposal focuses on the tension between inequalities generated in the productive and labor spheres and the characteristics of welfare regimes, emphasizing a theoretical perspective that draws on the Latin American tradition (Graciarena, 1976; Pinto, 1976; Prebisch, 1973), addressing these dynamics from the perspective of "Feminist thought and action and the sustainability of life." Faced with the withdrawal or inadequacy of the State and the volatility of the market, it is families—and specifically women—who cushion the shocks of the "polycrisis" (economic, ecological, and care-related) through the intensification of unpaid work (Folbre, 2018; Videgain, 2022). We consider it fundamental to analyze how the relationships between the social structure of societies (mediated by productive, labor, political, institutional features) and the way in which the heterogeneous welfare regimes of the region—in their diversity, from the Southern Cone and the Andean region to large economies such as Brazil and Mexico, and the insular Caribbean—process the "polycrisis" (economic, social, care and ecological) that our continent is going through (Barba, 2025) are configured.

While some countries in the region with progressive governments promoted social inclusion at the beginning of this century through the expansion of their social policies (Benza and Kessler, 2021), they failed to modify the segmented and stratified social architecture. Moreover, this expansion of rights was followed by another period of social disinclusion in countries that shifted to the right, only to then experience a temporary expansion of social policy during the COVID-19 pandemic by governments of all political persuasions (Niedzwiecki and Pribble, 2023; Arza and Martínez-Franzoni, 2024). The pendulum swing between left-wing and right-wing governments continues to characterize the region's political climate (Baldoni and Rosenberg, 2025), accompanied by a weakening of the legitimacy of the democratic political system, within which policies capable of addressing the structural factors of Latin American economic and social inequalities have not been implemented.

As has been widely observed, faced with a scarcity of resources to access markets and limited state provision, it is families (and specifically women) who, within a context of rights erosion, bear the burden of increasing economic subsistence strategies (Torrado, 1992) to mitigate the shock and ensure social reproduction through unpaid activities (Folbre, 2018). This widespread phenomenon demands the incorporation of a gender perspective into our analyses, one that makes visible the particularities of inequalities in labor markets and differentiated welfare regimes between women and men (Stanworth, 1984; Laperrière and Orloff, 2018). This entails adopting an intersectional approach that allows us to observe how socioeconomic, gender, racial and ethnic inequalities are articulated, which would lead to emphasizing the need to adapt welfare regimes to reorganize the dynamics between genders, and between the work and family spaces for all social strata and ethnic-racial groups (Pautassi, 2007; Videgain, 2022).

From our multidisciplinary and intersectional perspective, adopting a situated perspective is inseparable from the imperative to produce rigorous knowledge that not only diagnoses gaps, but also challenges the meanings of development and distributive justice in the face of meritocratic or neoliberal narratives that make invisible the structural origin of our inequalities (Yaschine, 2015; Pla, 2016; Vanoli Imperiali, 2025).

This situated reading is not an isolated academic exercise, but rather the result of a collective construction rooted in the institutional life of CLACSO in recent years. During the period 2023-2025, our perspective was strengthened through active collaboration in multiple activities (events, newsletters, books, dossiers, forums, Postgraduate Network) with four other Working Groups,

Poverty and social policy

Comparative social inequalities: social class, gender and ethnicity

What future for what job?

Latin American urban processes: (in)justices and (in)equalities

This vital and active collaboration allowed us to compare our hypotheses on structural heterogeneity with other perspectives, methodologies, and complementary techniques. We have also participated in the calls for proposals within the framework of the Platforms for Social Dialogue (PDS) convened by CLACSO, actively and consistently engaging in both public debate forums and the network's various in-person and virtual activities. This history of exchange confirms that the production of situated knowledge requires transcending disciplinary boundaries; therefore, we advocate for the continuation of this space for collaboration as a vital hub for challenging, through rigorous evidence and political commitment, the meanings of social justice in the region.

Theoretical Relevance

The proposal of this Working Group is based on the urgent intellectual and political need to build analytical frameworks that overcome disciplinary fragmentation in order to address inequalities in Latin America and the Caribbean. The theoretical relevance of our approach lies in the recovery and updating of the Latin American historical-structuralist tradition (Pinto, 1970; Prebisch, 1986; Furtado, 1971, Cortés and Salvia, 2019), putting it in dialogue with contemporary theories of: stratification and social classes (Solís and Boado, 2016; Pla, Poy and Salvia, 2022; Yaschine, Vargas and Valdés, 2023), welfare regimes (Yaschine, 2015 and 2023; Filgueira, 2015; Martínez-Franzoni, 2008) and feminist critique from the economics and sociology of work (Oliveira and Salles, 2000; Goldin, 2006).

Our central hypothesis argues that the persistence of inequalities is not an anomaly, but rather the result of a logical framework that links a heterogeneous productive matrix, the segmentation of labor markets (Hernández Aracena, 2022), a rigid class structure that limits social mobility (Ortiz, 2014; Solís and Boado, 2016), and welfare regimes that do not guarantee universal social rights (Cortés and Salvia, 2019; Bayón, 2015; Barba, 2025). Unlike neoclassical approaches that expect trickle-down development, or developmentalisms that blindly rely on growth, this research group problematizes the mechanisms that reproduce inequalities. We focus on how differentiated access to assets and opportunity structures—market, state, family/community—crystallizes disadvantages throughout the life cycle and across generations (Filgueira, 2001). We focus on household subsistence strategies and the link between productive and reproductive work, understanding that gender gaps and the social organization of care are central vectors of inequality (Hochschild, 2008; Blofield et al., 2021).

Intellectual and academic relevance

Our proposal builds upon the work of the Working Group on Inequalities, Social Structure, and Policies, which, in turn, continued the line of inquiry of the Working Group on Structural Heterogeneity and Social Inequality. Our team, with its long-standing tradition, has established itself as a leading force in the production of rigorous comparative knowledge in the region. The intellectual relevance of our contributions lies in their contribution to understanding the structural factors that explain the persistence of inequalities, integrating perspectives from the Southern Cone to Mexico and the Caribbean (Marcano Rivera, 2023). Our research has successfully proposed quantitative and qualitative methodologies for interpreting regional realities through a comparative lens (Cortés, 2018; Salvia and Piovani, 2018; Salvia, Poy, and Pla, 2022, among others).

Furthermore, we have carried out successful training and academic exchange programs between member centers and members of the Working Groups. We have strengthened collaborative ties with other Working Groups working on related topics, with whom we have worked together to deepen our understanding of inequalities and poverty as persistent phenomena (Cecchini and Atuesta, 2017).

The intellectual relevance of the proposal for this new stage (2026-2028) lies in four pillars:

1. Comparative studies: We integrate cases from eight countries (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay and Puerto Rico), allowing us to contrast diverse models of accumulation and social protection.

2. Methodological Innovation: Our members have a strong methodological background. We prioritize strengthening the use of advanced statistics and mixed methods for comparative research (Vargas, 2016; Gareth et al., 2013). Within this framework, we are interested in continuing the task of standardizing information sources across nations, which has already yielded concrete results in the study of social and territorial structures (Cortés and Salvia, 2019; Fernández, Vanoli, and Wilkins, 2022; Tavares Júnior et al., 2023).

3. Intergenerational dialogue: The GT is a training space. The active participation of graduate students and young researchers guarantees the renewal of research questions and the sustainability of the group in the future.

4. Participation in the public agenda: Since our formation we have actively participated in discussions of the public agenda, with a presence in forums, public media and regional magazines (such as Tramas y Redes), contributing a critical view on the quality of employment and distributive justice (Sehnbruch et al., 2020).

Social and political relevance (impact)

Beyond academia, the social relevance of this Working Group is evident in its capacity for public influence. The group's history demonstrates a commitment to the democratization of expert knowledge. A milestone in our recent trajectory has been the development of training programs such as the Diploma in Inclusive Statistics, the Specialization Seminar in Methodologies, and the Master's Program in Social Methodology, as well as the CLACSO Postgraduate Network (specifically, the course "Statistical Analysis Techniques"). These activities are carried out continuously in conjunction with the Working Group on Comparative Social Inequalities, and we maintain a strong presence in postgraduate programs at our various academic institutions, at both the specialization and master's levels. These initiatives aim to equip policymakers, social organizations, and students with technical and critical tools to highlight inequalities that traditional statistics often obscure.

Furthermore, the inclusion in the Working Group of members who belong to trade unions or who maintain direct dialogue with public institutions and social movements ensures that our analyses have a channel of communication with social intervention. In a context of weakening public services and a crisis in social protection systems, providing rigorous evidence on how state policies can (or cannot) mitigate inequality of origin is an act of public responsibility. In conclusion, this Working Group not only studies inequality gaps; it actively works to reduce them through the production of high-quality knowledge, the training of critical human resources, and advocacy on the regional public agenda, promoting just transitions toward more inclusive futures.

Finally, and in accordance with CLACSO's strategic guidelines, this proposal falls within several axes of the GT 2026-2028 call. The most central is the axis "Structural inequalities and distributive justice," however, it has a close relationship with the axes "Reconfigurations of work and productive models," "Democracies in dispute," and "Feminist thought and action."

This Working Group is linked to the Platforms for Social Dialogue. Given the complexity of inequalities, it transcends academia to function as a mechanism that researches and collaborates in building transformative alternatives. Our methodology will integrate horizontal exchange with social organizations, unions, and public policy actors, promoting a dialogue of knowledge that recognizes the power of activism and management experience.

Through these platforms, we aim to ensure that the production of rigorous knowledge on inequalities and welfare systems has a political impact, challenges the public agenda, and strengthens the response to the crisis. We are committed to co-designing regional roadmaps for distributive justice, seeking to ensure that our findings improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable sectors and strengthen the commons in Latin America and the Caribbean.