Sector privado y políticas públicas: una sistematización de las estrategias de actores no estatales en la promoción de reformas educativas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.42.2023.35942Palabras clave:
sector privado, fundaciones filantrópicas, política educativa, formación de políticas, política pública, privatizaciónResumen
Este artículo tiene por objetivo identificar las principales estrategias de influencia del sector privado en el ámbito de la política educativa. A pesar de que un número de estudios cada vez mayor documenta la creciente implicación del sector empresarial en la formulación de políticas públicas, la investigación empírica sobre esta cuestión sigue siendo fragmentaria y poco sistemática. Además, gran parte de la evidencia disponible se focaliza en el ámbito angloamericano y no permite entender el fenómeno en su dimensión global. Este artículo explora, revisa y sistematiza una serie de estrategias de influencia política del sector privado en el campo educativo a partir de una revisión de la literatura centrada en reformas educativas promercado. A partir de los resultados de esta revisión, el artículo identifica cuatro estrategias de influencia: la movilización de conocimientos, la creación de redes, el apoyo a movimientos sociales y el patrocinio de experiencias piloto. Cada estrategia se ilustra con ejemplos de una selección de casos empíricos.
El estudio muestra cómo el sector privado desempeña una gama de funciones cada vez más heterogéneas en el ámbito de la política educativa, y apunta a que las organizaciones privadas están diversificando los recursos y las formas de capital que movilizan. Así, la hora de incidir en políticas públicas, el sector privado no depende únicamente de su poder económico y de las formas más evidentes de capital político, sino que se apoya cada vez más en las conexiones relativamente informales con diferentes actores (como el tercer sector, y las élites económicas o de la sociedad civil), y el reconocimiento como expertos y productores de conocimiento, adquirido mediante la movilización de evidencia. Finalmente, los resultados sugieren que el sector privado opera cada vez más como un actor político de primer orden, integrado orgánicamente en procesos y espacios de elaboración de políticas.
Descargas
Citas
Apple, M. W., y Pedroni, T. C. (2005). Conservative alliance building and African American support of vouchers: The end of Brown’s promise or a new beginning? Teachers College Record, 107(9), 2068–2105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00585.x
Au, W.. y Ferrare, J. J. (2015a). Introduction: Neoliberalism, social networks, and the new governance of education. En W. Au, y J. J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping corporate education: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state (pp. 1–22). Routledge.
Au, W., y Ferrare, J. J. (2015b). Other people’s policy: Wealthy elites and charter school reform in Washington State. En W. Au, y J. J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping corporate education: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state (pp. 147–164). Routledge.
Avelar, M. y Ball, S. J. (2019). Mapping new philanthropy and the heterarchical state: The Mobilization for the National Learning Standards in Brazil. International Journal of Educational Development, 64, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.007
Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc. Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Routledge.
Ball, S. J., y Olmedo, A. (2012). Global social capitalism: Using enterprise to solve the problems of the world. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 10(2, 3), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.2304/csee.2011.10.2.83
Ball, S. J., y Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Brussels: Education International. https://cutt.ly/p1rctsx
Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31(6), 777–805.doi?
Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton University Press.
Bhanji, Z. (2008). Transnational corporations in education: Filling the governance gap through new social norms and market multilateralism? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 55–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720701855618
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. En .G. Richardson (Ed.), The Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1981). La représentation politique. Éléments pour une théorie du champ politique [Political representation. Elements for a theory of the political field]. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 36-37, 3-24.
Bulkley, K. E., y Burch, P. (2011). The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963
Casey, K. (2008, April). Defining Political Capital: A Reconsideration of Bourdieu’s Interconvertibility Theory [Conference presentation]. Annual Illinois State University Conference for Students of Political Science, Normal, IL, United States.
Cave, T., y Rowell, A. (2014). A quiet word: Lobbying, crony capitalism, and broken politics in Britain. The Bodley Head-Vintage.
DeBray-Pelot, E. H., Lubienski, C. A., y Scott, J. T. (2007). The institutional landscape of interest group politics and school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2/3), 204–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312947
Garsten, C., y Sörbom, A. (2017). Introduction: political affairs in the global domain. En C. Garsten y A. Sörbom (Eds.), Power, policy and profit corporate engagement in politics and governance (pp. 1–24). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., y Lubienski, C. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the ''echo chamber'' hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515330
Han, S., y Ye, F. (2017). China’s education policy-making: A policy network perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1291998
Heaney, M. T. (2006). Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest group influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(5), 887–944. https:// 10.1215/03616878-2006-012
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., y Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6)837–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.003
Hogan, A., Sellar, S., y Lingard, B. (2015). Network restructuring of global edu-business: The case of Pearson’s efficacy framework. En W. Au y J. J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping Corporate Education Reform. Power and Policy Networks in the Neoliberal State (pp. 43–64). Routledge.
Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00107
Junemann, C., Ball, S., y Santori, D. (2016). Joined-up policy: Network connectivity and global education governance. En K. Mundy, A. Green, R. Lingard, y A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of Global Policy and Policy-Making in Education (pp. 535–553). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lubienski, C. (2016). Sector distinctions and the privatization of public education policymaking. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2) 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878516635332
Lubienski. C., Brewer, T. J., y La Londe, P. G. (2015). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. The Australian Education Researcher, 43(1), 55–73. https:// 10.1007/s13384-015-0187-y
Lubienski, C., Scott, J., y DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329
Maloney, W. A., Jordan, G., y McLaughlin, A. M. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001239
Martins, E. M., y Krawczyk, N. R. (2016) Entrepreneurial influence in Brazilian education policies: The case of Todos Pela Educação. En A. Verger, C. Lubienski, y G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 78-–89). Routledge.
McCann, E., y Ward, K. (2012). Assembling urbanism: following policies and “studying through” the sites and situations of policy making. Environment and Planning, 44(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44178
Nambissan, G. B., y Ball, S. J. (2010). Advocacy networks, choice and private schooling of the poor in India. Global Networks, 10(3), 324-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00291.x
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2017). Global Philanthropy for Development. Results of the OECD Data Survey as of 19 June 2017. OECD. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/Preliminary-results-philanthropy-survey.pdf
Olmedo, A., y Santa Cruz, E. (2013). Neoliberalism, policy advocacy networks, and think tanks in the Spanish educational arena: The case of FAES. Education Inquiry, 4(3), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i3.22618
Opfer, V. D. (2001). Beyond self-interest: Educational interest groups and congressional influence. Educational Policy, 15(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904801015001008
Peroni, V. M. V., Rossi, A. J., Pires, D. de O., Uczak, L. H., Cormelatto, L. P., y Caetano, M. R. (2013). Relação público privado na educação básica – Notas sobre o histórico e o caso do PDE-PAR - Guia de Tecnologias [Public private relation on basic education – Notes about the historic and the case of PDE-PAR -Technologies Guide]. Série-Estudos - Periódico do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da UCDB, 0(34), 31–44. https://serieucdb.emnuvens.com.br/serie-estudos/article/view/50
Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money. How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford University Press.
Reckhow, S, y Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195.doi?
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. The Political Quarterly, 65(2), 138–151. doi?
Rossi, A., Bernardi, L., y Uczak, L. (2013). Relação público-privada no Programa de desenvolvimento da educação: Uma análise do Plano de ações articuladas [Public-private relationship in the Education development program: An analysis of the Articulated actions plan. En V. Peroni (Ed.), Relações entre o público e o privado; Implicações para a democratização da educação [Relations between the public and the private sector; Implications for the democratization of education] (pp. 198–2019). Brasília: Líber Livro.
Saltman, K. J. (2010). The Gift of Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy. Palgrave.
Sabatier, P. A., y Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. En P.A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.) (pp. 189–220). Westview Press.
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328531
Scott, J., y Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
Shiroma, E. O. (2013). Networks in action: New actors and practices in education policy in Brazil. Journal of Education Policy, 29(3), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.831949
Srivastava, P. (2014, March). Contradictions and the persistence of the mobilizing frames of privatization: Interrogating the global evidence on low-fee private schooling [Conference presentation]. Annual conference of the Comparative y International Education Society (CIES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Srivastava, P. (2016). Questioning the global scaling up of low-fee private schooling: The nexus between business, philanthropy, and PPPs. En A. Verger, C. Lubienski, y G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry (pp. 248–263). Routledge.
Tooley, J., y Longfield, D. (2015). The Role and Impact of Private Schools in Developing Countries: A response to the DFID-commissioned “Rigorous Literature Review”. Pearson. https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/208667/DEA1EDE1-4499-49D6-A971-C0128AB3F19C.pdf
Tompkins-Stange, M. (2016). Policy Patrons. Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of Influence. Harvard Education Press.
Urry, J. (2003). Social networks, travel and talk. British Journal of Sociology, 54(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007131032000080186
Vaes, S., y Huyse, H. (2015). Private sector in development cooperation. Mapping international debates, donor policies, and Flemish development cooperation. Leuven: HIVA - Research Institute for Work and Society (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/research/policy-research-centre/documents-1/21-hiva-steunpunt-psd-onderzoek-approvedfinal-2.pdf
Verger, A., Steiner-Khamsi, G., and Lubienski, C. (2017). The Emerging Global Education Industry: Analyzing market-making in education through market sociology. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.831949
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
