Proximity As Policy Repair: Implementing Welfare in Weak Institutional Contexts in the Global South

Background and Purpose:
Proximity-based welfare interventions—where services are delivered in people’s homes and strong relational ties are deliberately fostered—have gained traction globally as a strategy to mitigate poverty and strengthen connections between citizens and the state. However, little is known about how such programs function under weak institutional conditions with limited resources and historically low levels of trust in public agencies. This study examines Chile’s Familias program to explore how proximity (both spatial and relational) can “repair” state-citizen relations and what challenges emerge when frontline professionals compensate for institutional fragilities in the Global South.

Methods:
A total of 26 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with Integral Family Supports (IFS)— social workers’ implementing Familias—in four municipalities of Chile. Participants were recruited through coordination with municipal program coordinators and regional administrators. Interview questions focused on participants’ experiences of resource scarcity, their strategies for engaging families in their homes, and how they navigate institutional constraints to deliver services. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using an inductive approach. Policy documents and administrative guidelines were also reviewed to contextualize the program’s goals and institutional framework.

Findings:
IFS professionals describe using home visits (spatial proximity) and personalized emotional support (relational proximity) to build trust with families and encourage service uptake. These strategies, however, frequently require frontline workers to activate personal networks or “improvise” solutions, effectively bypassing bureaucratic bottlenecks. While professionals see these tactics as necessary to deliver immediate aid, they also acknowledge that heavy reliance on individualized discretion can inadvertently replicate inequities, such as favoring the most responsive families or those deemed “deserving.” This masking of systemic deficits risks normalizing the absence of robust institutional supports.

Conclusion and Implications:
Findings shed light on the dual role of proximity-based programs in weak institutional contexts: although they can temporarily repair strained state-citizen relations, they may also perpetuate structural gaps if broader policy reforms and cross-agency coordination are not in place. For social work practice and research internationally, this study underscores the importance of pairing relational strategies with institutional strengthening to ensure that proximity-based interventions advance both equity and sustainable policy development.