Latin American countries have shifted from a model of education governance based on hierarchical rules and centralized authority to a results-driven model with shared responsibility among state and non-state actors. Yet, adopted governance models show remarkable cross-national variation. This dissertation aims at explaining this variation amid convergence through the qualitative comparative analysis of education governance in Chile, Argentina, and Colombia during three distinct periods of development, namely centralized education planning from the standpoint of manpower needs (1960s-1970s), market-oriented governance mechanisms (1980s-1990s), and accountability-oriented education for all (2000s-2010s). This analysis demonstrates that while diffusion of widely recognized policy ideas about education governance produces convergence, political contestation of domestic organized actors produces variation that ranges from full adoption to outright rejection of foreign recommendations. My study qualifies insights from institutional and diffusion theories by specifying the conditions in which domestic actors are able to modify both, domestic institutions and powerful foreign ideas. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Education reforms in several Latin American countries follow a global trend characterized by at least three changes: 1) from selective student recruitment towards the universalization of secondary education and school choice for families; 2) from a centralized curriculum towards curricular autonomy; and 3) from student evaluation exclusively delegated to teachers towards national standardized tests. Yet, adopted governance models show remarkable cross-national variation. Chile has traditionally emulated global ideas and become a quasi-market of education. Argentina was more reluctant to global norms and made only moderate changes to the state-run governance model. Finally, Colombia left the education of the wealthy to the market, while centralized the authority over the education of the poor. Through a comparative historical analysis of these three countries, this study explains the way in which global ideas are domestically translated through the interaction between diffusion mechanisms, domestic policy legacies, and the ability of domestic actors to negotiate the implementation of foreign recommendations. The evidence provided by this dissertation suggests that the level of organization, the closeness to the decision-making process, and the impact of the power resources of supporters and opponents of global ideas define the extent to what these ideas are adopted. If global ideas favor the interests of powerful actors and opposition is weak the more likely result is the emulation of foreign recommendations. Yet, the more the opposition obtains resources to force powerful actors to bargain, the more the chances for global norms to be resisted or rejected. This analysis explains how the encounter between global norms and domestic institutions shapes processes of domestic institutional entrepreneurship and uncovers paths through which this entrepreneurship is more likely to produce emulation or rejection of global ideas. This dissertation qualifies insights of historical and sociological institutionalisms and contributes to the literature on education policy globalization.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/20527 |
| Date | January 2016 |
| Creators | Diaz Rios, Claudia |
| Contributors | Dion, Michelle, Political Science |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds