To Export Progress: The Golden Age of University Assistance in the Americas

Two: Givers and Receivers

2 Givers and Receivers This chapter looks at the chief exporters and importers. It identifies and analyzes the major actors, at a macro level, on both the giving and receiving ends during the crusade to transform the Latin American university and, through it, to promote national development. On the giving side, that means analysis of the principal foundation, bilateral donors, and multilateral donors . On the receiving side, it means a comparison of Latin American nations. The chapter’s macro emphasis on who gave to whom includes attention to why the unprecedented undertaking was made and to the broad picture of how much was given and how it was given (questions pursued at more institutional or micro levels in subsequent chapters). The chapter presents its material in three main parts. The first introduces the main donors and their assistance profile over time. Providing more aggregate data, the second part explores broad dimensions of relationships involving matters such as golden age goals, selectivity, partnership, and control. The third part of the chapter turns to how much different nations received, and why. All three parts are vital to mapping the historic and captivating undertaking. Unlike the subsequent three chapters, this chapter does not analyze results but, like them, looks at goals and especially efforts, though it examines efforts at the most general level. Thematically, the chapter considers the relative consistency of these efforts with elements of the philanthropic ideal type established in the book’s introduction and with related views of change from Givers and Receivers | 35 chapter 1. Thus the chapter’s conceptual thrust complements its descriptive overview. The Givers Among the multiple and often zealously hopeful donors, it is easy to select the main ones for study. Within each major category—private foundation, bilateral agency, and multilateral agency—a single actor towers over others in its giving to Latin American universities. Moreover, the Ford Foundation, AID, and the IDB are by far the three most important donors regardless of category; no number two from any category would lead the number one in any other. And all three choices fit our emphasis on U.S. assistance. This is unambiguous for Ford and AID, and the United States accounts for a greater share of IDB than of World Bank or UN agency funds. Additional foundations , bilateral agencies, and multilateral agencies are briefly sketched following consideration of the big three.1 Ford Foundation Created in 1936 and limited until 1950 to its native Michigan, the Ford Foundation then rocketed to the premier position among the world’s foundations . It would soon command four times the resources of the Rockefeller Foundation, twelve times those of Carnegie, and one-sixth the wealth of all twenty-five thousand U.S. foundations combined. This surge contributed to charges that the “prodigal young giant” was too large and careless—at odds with philanthropic selectivity. On the other hand, Ford has usually ranked near the top when authors list the most important foundations that are innovative and progressive.2 Ford’s overall primacy holds for philanthropy directed at the Third World (Arnove 1980a: 307). Although Latin America was the last developing region it entered, in 1959, Ford immediately became the clear leader there, too. From that point through the mid-1970s (i.e., during the golden age of assistance), Latin America was the priority region for Ford’s International Division and the leading region in the share of Ford funds directed to education. Table 2.1 shows Latin America’s leadership in Ford’s university assistance as well: the region held first place from 1959 through the 1970s despite the delayed start and the fall below Asia in the late 1970s. Indeed, the most striking emphasis in Ford’s overall giving was its favoring of higher education. This fits philanthropic ideal typical means including an emphasis on operating where knowledge, expertise, and professionalism are available. It also fits regarding selectivity in that higher education was obviously much more limited in size than were primary and secondary education . Following the pattern it had traced at home, Ford decided higher education was the natural foundation route. Even the giant of foundations Table 2.1 Ford Foundation Grants to Universities in Less Developed Countries by Region 1952–58 1959–64 1965–69 1970–74 1975–79 Total Latin America a 0 (0) b 0.0% 20,871,888 (89) 39.2% 26,492,603 (105) 39.6% 18,435,955 (157...