Abstract
National higher education systems have undergone a series of transformations in recent decades. Since the 1980s, regulatory systems governing higher education have witnessed a number of changes. In particular, there has been a shift away from a model of state control, to one of state oversight, in which the state designs a framework of rules and policy objectives for the system as a whole, and institutions have greater freedom to establish their own mission and pursue their own priorities (Neave and Van Vught 1991, quoted in Musselin and Teixeira 2014:4). The differences between one country and another in terms of the type of regulation that is adopted are the result of political and ideological factors. This study contributes to the debate by describing the transformation of two higher education systems in Latin America. Through an analysis of a series of documents, legislation, and norms, as well as media reports on the matter, we show how in each of the two countries, different relationships between the market, the state, and the universities have emerged, and can be explained by political factors and ideological contexts of each country. In the case of Ecuador, the definition of policies, university autonomy, and the creation of regulatory agencies allows the state’s presence and political influence to be felt, while in Peru, a market-based philosophy guides educational policy and content. Thus, in Ecuador, in contrast to Peru, the university itself is less autonomous, and the university system is governed by the principle of responsible autonomy, with limitations in the form of supervisory and quality control responsibilities distributed among public organizations, where representatives of the executive branch make up the majority of board directorships. The regulatory process is less gradual in nature, which may have hastened the closure of universities. In this sense, we will discuss how the different ideological contexts and relationships between social and political actors lead, on the one hand, to government-based regulation (Ecuador), and on the other, to a market-oriented framework (Peru). Although technocracy is a characteristic of both processes, there are nuances in the way the relationship between the state, market, and universities develops.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Law No. 23733, December 9, 1983.
Constitutional Tribunal Resolution File No 0017-2008-PI/TC, 2010.
Doctoral degree regulations (2007), academic framework regulation (2008)
Network created in 2009 composed of ten universities and several technological institutions, many of which are for-profit.
The agreements revolved around the creation of the Sector Secretariat, the composition and chair of the Higher Education Council and the Council for Evaluation, Accreditation and Quality Assurance of Higher Education, university autonomy, and the level of state control.
Explained in part by the great discrediting of the universities and the disapproval that citizens felt for the state of the higher education system, due to constant denunciations and scandals, the commercialization of degrees, and the low quality of education, among others.
Department of Education (MINEDU), National Center for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN), National Council for Science and Technology (CONCYTEC), two public universities, and two private universities.
References
Benavides, M., Chávez, C., & Arellano, A. (2016). La Construcción Política e Institucional de la Reforma Universitaria: Los casos del Perú y Ecuador. In S. Cueto (Ed.), Innovación y Calidad en Educación en América Latina (pp. 155–194). Lima: GRADE.
Bernasconi, A. (2008). Is there a Latin American model of the university? Comparative Education Review, 52(1), 27–52.
British Council. (2016). La reforma del sistema universitario peruano: Internacionalización, avance, retos y oportunidades. Lima: British Council.
Brunner, J. J. (1990). Educación superior en América Latina: Cambios y Desafíos. Santiago de Chile: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Brunner, J. J. (2011). University governance: typology, dynamics and trends. Revista de Educación, 355, 137–159.
CEAACES. (2013). “Suspendida por falta de calidad”. El cierre de catorce universidades en Ecuador. Quito: Consejo de Evaluación, Acreditación y Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441.
Clemens, E. S. (2007). Toward a historicized sociology: theorizing events, processes, and emergence. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131700.
Congreso de la República del Ecuador. (2010). Ley Orgánica de Educación superior. Quito: Congreso de la República del Ecuador.
Congreso de la República del Ecuador. (2008). Decreto 982. Registro Oficial 311. Quito: Congreso de la República del Ecuador.
Congreso de la República del Perú. (1983). Ley Universitaria N° 23733. Lima: Congreso de la República del Perú.
Congreso de la República del Perú. (2014). Ley N° 30220. Ley Universitaria. Lima: Congreso de la República del Perú.
CNSRU. (2002). Diagnóstico de la universidad peruana: Razones Para una nueva reforma universitaria. Lima: Congreso de la República del Perú.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations. Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer.
De Figueiredo-Cowen, M. (2002). Latin American universities, academic freedom and autonomy: a long-term myth? Comparative Education, 38(4), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006022000030702.
Dobbins, M. (2011). Higher education policies in central and Eastern Europe. Convergence towards a common model? Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Leisyte, L. (2008). On striking the right notes: Shifts in governance and the Organisational transformation of universities. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, & C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to identity. A Festschrift for Mary Henkel (pp. 113–129). Dordrecht: Springer.
Espinoza Díaz, O. (2010). Los sistemas de aseguramiento de la calidad en la educación Superior en América Latina. Akademeia, 1(1), 7–22.
Frank, D., & Meyer, J. (2007). University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and Society, 36(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9035-z.
Gornitzka, Å., & Maassen, P. A. M. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy., 13(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(00)00012-X.
Hega, G. M., & Hokenmaier, K. G. (2002). The welfare state and education: a comparison of social and educational policy in advanced industrial countries. German Policy Studies, 2(1), 1–28.
Heidenheimer, A. J. (1981). Education and social security entitlements in Europe and America. In P. Flora & A. J. Heidenheimer (Eds.), The development of welfare states in Europe and America (pp. 265–304). London: Transaction Books.
Hokenmaier, K. G. (1998). Social security vs. educational opportunity in advanced industrial societies: is there a trade-off? American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 709–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991779.
Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2013). Hierarchy and power: a conceptual analysis with particular reference to new public management reforms in German universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.850920.
Martens, K., Nagel, A., Windzio, M., & Weymann, A. (2010). Transformation of education policy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Meyer, J., Ramirez, F. O., Frank, D., & Schofer, E. (2006). Higher education as an institution. California: CDDRL Working Papers.
MINEDU. (2006). La universidad en el Perú: Razones Para una segunda reforma universitaria. Informe 2006. Lima: Ministerio de Educación del Perú.
Minteguiaga, A. (2012). Los vaivenes en la regulación y evaluación de la educación superior en Ecuador. El caso del Mandato 14 en el contexto constituyente. In SENESCYT, Transformar la universidad para transformar la sociedad (pp. 83–123). Quito: SENESCYT.
Musselin, C. (2005). Change or continuity in higher education governance? Lessons drawn from twenty years of National Reforms in European countries. In I. Bleiklie & M. Henkel (Eds.), Governing knowledge. A study of continuity and change in higher education - a Festschrift in honour of Maurice Kogan (pp. 65–80). Dordrecht: Springer.
Musselin, C., & Teixeira, P. N. (2014). Introduction. In C. Musselin & P. Teixeira (Eds.), Reforming higher education. Public policy design and implementation (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht: Springer.
Neave, G. (1996). Homogenization, integration, and convergence: The Chershire cats of higher education analysis. In V. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, & R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education (pp. 26–41). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Neave, G. (2003). The Bologna declaration: Some of the historic dilemmas posed by the reconstruction of the Community in Europe’s Systems of Higher Education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802239290.
Neave, G., & van Vught, F. A. (eds) (1991). Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in western Europe. London: Pergamon Press.
Oszlak, O. (2004). Privatización y capacidad de regulación estatal: una aproximación teórico-metodológica. In L. Bresser-Pereira, N. Cunill Grau, L. Garnier, O. Oszlak, & A. Przeworski (Eds.), Política y gestión pública (pp. 139–194). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Pechar, H., & Andres, L. (2011). Higher-education policies and welfare regimes: international comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 24(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2010.24.
Pelaez, L., & Stretch, B. (1963). Autonomy and student co-government in the University of Uruguay. Comparative Education Review, 7(2), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1086/444985.
Ramírez, R. (2013). Tercera Ola de transformación de la educación superior en Ecuador. Hacia la constitucionalización de la sociedad del buen vivir. Quito: SENESCYT.
Ramirez, F. O., & Tiplic, D. (2014). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher Education, 67(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9681-1.
Regini, M. (2011). European universities and the challenge of the market: A comparative analysis. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Rivera, E. (2004). Teorías de la regulación en la perspectiva de las políticas públicas. Gestión y Política Pública, XIII(2), 309–372.
Rojas, J. (2011). Reforma universitaria en el Ecuador. Etapa de transición. Innovación Educativa, 11(57), 59–67.
SUNEDU. (2015). El Modelo de Licenciamiento y su Implementación en el Sistema Universitario Peruano. Lima: Superintendencia Nacional de Educación Superior Universitaria.
Teixeira, P., et al. (2004). Markets in higher education. Rhetoric or reality? Dordrecht: Springer.
Triventi, M. (2014). Higher education regimes: an empirical classification of higher education systems and its relationship with student accessibility. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1685–1703.
Vela, M. (2012). En busca de la excelencia académica... ¿en serio? Revista Gestión, 217, 16–30.
Weise, C., & Laguna, J. L. (2008). La Educación superior en la región andina: Bolivia, Perú y Ecuador. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas), 13(2), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772008000200009.
Other references
CORRESPONSALES.PE. (2014). ¿Cómo se distribuyeron los votos para aprobar la nueva Ley Universitaria? http://corresponsales.pe/mi-universidad/noticias/item/2096-vot.
DIARIO EL COMERCIO DE PERU. (2014a). Superman, por Alfredo Bullard. https://elcomercio.pe/opinion/columnistas/superman-alfredo-bullard-340295. Accessed 6 Oct 2018.
DIARIO EL COMERCIO DE PERU. (2014b). Torpezas legislativas, por Enrique Bernales. https://elcomercio.pe/opinion/columnistas/torpezas-legislativas-enrique-bernales-341165. Accessed 6 Oct 2018.
ECUADOR INMEDIATO. (2010). Universidades realizaran marcha hacia asamblea por ley educación superior http://ecuadorinmediato.com/index.php?module=Noticias&func=news_user_view&id=128945&umt=universidades_realizaran_marcha_hacia_asamblea_por_ley_educacion_superior_jueves.
EL DIARIO. (2010). Violenta marcha de universitarios en Loja. http://www.eldiario.ec/noticias-manabi-ecuador/159070-violenta-marcha-de-universitariosen-loja/.
EL TIEMPO. (2010). Marcha estudiantil contra proyecto de Ley de Educación. http://www.eltiempo.com.ec/noticias-cuenca/41932-marcha-estudiantil-contra-proyecto-deley-de-educacia-n/.
EL UNIVERSO. (2010). Incidentes en marcha de universitarios por veto a la Ley de Educación Superior. http://www.eluniverso.com/2010/09/08/1/1355/universitarios-marchan-contra-veto-leyeducacion-superior.html.
USFQ. (2009). Carta abierta: USFQ en la marcha. http://noticias.usfq.edu.ec/2009/10/carta-abierta-usfq-en-la-marcha.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benavides, M., Arellano, A. & Zárate Vásquez, J.S. Market- and government-based higher education reforms in Latin America: the cases of Peru and Ecuador, 2008–2016. High Educ 77, 1015–1030 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0317-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0317-3