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

This book by Daniel Levy represents a necessary and original contribution to the field of international higher education. Scholars who are interested in Latin American higher education and in the study of international organizations sponsoring development initiatives in these countries will benefit significantly from reading this volume.

Taking advantage of the invaluable opportunity of reviewing the archives of the Ford Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Levy interviewed and conversed with key actors from these organizations, including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). However, Levy goes beyond simply reporting the data obtained during several years of research; he suggests that progress and development can be exported and that higher education may be the best instrument for doing so. The core of his discussion is relevant—but also controversial.

Logically organized, the book contains eight sections including a substantive section of appendixes. In the introduction, Levy discusses the idea of progress and the role of aid agencies, detailing the situation during the "Golden Assistance Age" (1960–1975).

In exploring his philanthropic ideal change, Levy borrows elements from three different literatures: international assistance, national development, and domestic policy reform. Chapter 1 discusses this literature and some ideas for evaluating institutional change.

Chapter 2 presents a very complete compilation of data on the three organizations studied and the receiving Latin American countries. More specifically, he deals with Latin American universities financed by these aid agencies during the 1960s and early 1970s.

The debate on donors' success in promoting the restructuring and modernization of university systems through assistance is discussed in Chapter 3. Levy identifies interinstitutional diversification and higher education expansion as the two most important goals for restructuring Latin American higher education during that period.

In Chapter 4, Levy reviews some of the characteristics in Latin American universities that have created greater difficulties for beginning change processes but concludes that assistance produced positive change.

The next chapter deals with academic work issues: the academic profession, research, graduate education, and fields of study. The results of these activities appear to have been less encouraging, although Levy considers them more impressive when the opposition factors are considered in the evaluation.

In the last chapter, Levy defines the efforts of these donors as part of a "crusade" to export progress through universities. An important dilemma is how to deal with the paradoxes of change (i.e., deepness versus projected goals)

Levy's book has two important absences and a major contribution to stress. Levy argues that exporting university models to developing countries has constituted a clear mechanism to drive development and progress in these nations, but he fails to discuss in any detail the notions and implications of progress and modernity. Levy implies that progress and modernity are exportable processes but did not really consider the broader socio-political context. In times where even the idea of postmodernity seems to have been surpassed, I ask: How effective is it to base a discussion on the concept of modernity?

Also, it seems questionable that progress might be considered importable and exportable like any other product or service in today's economy. These considerations carry other problems with them: Under this framework who would be the importers? Would they be so-called developing nations? Within those countries, is it their federal or state governments? Or would it be Latin American universities, their presidents, or governing bodies? Indeed, Levy's text lacks a clear discussion on aspects of the geopolitical situation of the continent and the unequal power balances and schemes of domination among and inside Latin American nations.

Second, Levy's concept of philanthropy and his decision to use this concept rather than other terms such as international assistance or cooperation is questionable. Conditionality is central in his discussion since it has defined the impact of philanthropy in change. But in this debate, Levy fails to consider power, social asymmetries, and the growing situation of neocolonialism...