Public Policy and Private Higher Education in Latin America: Between the Market and the State

• In Event: Assessing Policy, Language, Tools and Capacity for Equity in Education across the LAC Region

Proposal

Long monopolized by public institutions, Latin American higher education had a relatively small private sector until the mid-20th century. However, since 1955 and increasingly so by 1975, higher education in the region cannot be conceived without its voluminous private sector. This sector boasts an impressive record: it enrolls half of the students attending higher education in Latin America, making it the region with the highest share of private sector participation worldwide (Levy, 2018). So, no serious analysis or analysist could avoid touching on the presence of PHE. Through both action and inaction, public policy has contributed to PHE consolidating as a vital sector in Latin America. This chapter not just considers PHE’s role in higher education, but it actually centers its analysis on the relationship between public policy and PHE in Latin America through the identification of commonalities and variations across countries.

Latin American governments have been more reactive than proactive in delineating any public policy concerning the private sector. As a result, most of the growth of PHE in Latin America happened without any government plan regarding the size of the PHE sector (Levy, 1986). Often, public policy directed toward the public sector influenced private sector behavior, and private sector regulation only came as an afterthought in the shape of “delayed regulation” (Levy, 2006). A historical perspective shows how public policy toward higher education in Latin America evolved from a “state-steering” to a “pluralist-market” model, albeit with variations.

Public policy leaped to a different approach, albeit within a “pluralist-market model” based on many developments in the last half of the 20th century. The massification of higher education systems, their horizontal and vertical diversification, and the limited State capacity to fund this expansion generated concerns in many key stakeholders (governments, public universities, and traditional private universities). Until then, autonomy had left democratic regimes with a limited set of tools to influence the behavior of higher education institutions. The 1980s and 1990s introduced the idea of accountability within highly autonomous higher education systems. These new policies reflected an approach moving toward an “evaluative state” (Neave, 1988). The reforms had some common features: the introduction of new financial tools such as cost-sharing and the diversification of funding sources, the redesign of governance structures, and the creation of new mechanisms for quality control (e.g., accreditation systems, standardized test for undergraduate students) (Castro & Levy, 2000; Mollis, 2007). These reforms had the backing of international and multilateral financial agencies (i.e., World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank) willing to support governments interested in transforming their higher education systems. Most of these endeavors had a market-friendly, neoliberal approach (Bernasconi, 2008; Castro & Levy, 2000). In practice, this meant mushrooming of accreditation agencies, links between performance and funding, and diversification in funding sources.

This study utilizes qualitative (archival) and descriptive quantitative data to explore the role of public policy toward higher education in Latin America. The paper uses quantitative data to provide a historical overview of higher education growth, differentiating between private and public sectors. Rankings data is used as a proxy for prestige to show private-public comparisons and better understand the role of the private sector in higher education. Archival research aids in the analysis of legislation governing the establishment, licensing, and accreditation of PHE institutions. The analysis relies on policy models that explain the role of government, society, and markets in shaping higher education in the region.

The analysis shows how public policy has contributed to PHE consolidating as a vital sector in Latin America through both action and inaction. Albeit higher education systems in the region vary in their approach to PHE, showing ample variety in approaches toward PHE, they essentially correspond to the tenets of the pluralist market model. Much of the growth and the demand that took place from 1955 has been unplanned and unforeseen. Governments, still the main actors, were no longer the system’s supreme architect. Resembling a “pluralist-market model” (Levy, forthcoming), other actors were involved in developing higher education, providing ample room for society and the market to shape higher education.

Scarce public resources have long affected Latin American higher education. Analyzing commonalities and variations in public policy approaches in the region from a comparative and international perspective provides insights into how countries approach this issue. For example, if public policies differ for nonprofit and for-profit from country to country or even within countries, or if public-private distinction in the region is clear and unmistakable in questions of governance, finance, and quality assurance, among other relevant topics. PHE in Latin America has been studied only quite limited, usually without theoretical tools. Thus, the resulting findings should help inform debates about the role of governments and other stakeholders in regulating PHE and the responses from the private sector. The objective then is to contribute to a better understanding of a sector where there is no such a one-size-fits-all approach.

Authors

• MARCELO RABOSSI, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella

• Dante J Salto, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee