May 2012 Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap (UMB)

Institutt for internasjonale miljø- og utviklingsstudier (Noragric) Ås – Norge

The debate on Chile’s higher education: a right or merchandise? Javier Sandoval Guzmán

javsando@gmail.com

Abstract

The education, rather than being considered a right that needs to be assured for any

human being, it has been progressively deemed as merchandise subject to the laws of the

markets. This idea neglects the essence of education as the transmission of knowledge that

has been socially constructed and, as such, belonging to the whole human kind. In this

article, I will focus on Chile’s system of education, particularly on its tertiary (or higher)

education, which is passing through a crisis rooted in decades ago. The crisis has

deepened the country’s inequalities, leading to recent social outbreak commanded by the

student movement.

Keywords: autonomy, crisis, human rights, perverse interests, merchandise, privatization, profit, free public education, public role, quality of the education, self-financing.

1. Introduction

Perhaps the majority of the society is aware about the long existence of human

rights as an idea, and maybe it is also well known that they have been defined, approved,

and thus “legalized” in several international covenants and declarations. The right to

education is one of them, as it can be seen in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (1948), or in the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (1966). However, beyond any agreement, it must be acknowledged that these rights

have been systematically violated throughout history. Plus, some of them are not even

 

 

2  

considered as human rights by numerous influential states (Uvin, 2004). The purpose of

this article is to draw upon old and more recent debates addressing the question of why

considering education as a right, acknowledging its different interpretations, perspectives

and definitions, as well as examining how far is reality from the ideal fulfilment of this

human right. In addition, I suggest some possible paths we can follow to positively

influence the unfortunate situation of the education system in Chile. The education, rather

than being considered a right that needs to be assured for any human being, it has been

progressively deemed as merchandise subject to the laws of the market (see Brunner &

Uribe, 2007). This idea neglects the essence of education as the transmission of knowledge

that has been socially constructed and, as such, belonging to the whole human kind.

Whether the right to education has been violated or not since its conception has

been a source of debate for different sectors of the society, wherein student movements

have played an important role. The historical demands of this latter group have comprised

not only the defence of this right, for they have also been involved in struggles for peace,

democracy and many other important issues affecting societies all around the world (see for

example DeGroot, 1998; Van Maanen, 1966). In the following debate, though, I will focus

on the case of Chile’s system of education, particularly its tertiary (or higher) education.

In specific terms, this situation is rooted in the country’s recent history and the

different policies that have systematically pushed the system towards its definite

privatization. It must be acknowledged that the idea of at least a partial privatization is

since long ago, officially widespread, being also accepted in international covenants (see

for example UN, 1966, Art. 13. §4). In the case of Chile, the aspects defining a

privatization according to many experts fit well in the Chilean model (see Belfield & Levin,

2002; Walford, 1990). The actors that have guided this trend, however, have not explicitly

recognized the privatization of the system as their final objective. With the absence of

political will to consider the social demands, the outcomes of this crisis reached an

unexpected level of connotation in 2006. This year witnessed mass participation of students

in strikes that lasted for several months, putting in evidence the necessity of structural

change. This process -led mainly by high school students- was called “la revolución

 

 

3  

pingüina”1 (see Bellei, Contreras & Valenzuela, 2010; Gutiérrez & Caviedes, 2006). Later,

in 2011 with the still unsolved crisis of the system, the movement swept with the recent

history of movements, reaching enormous levels of participation that comprised not only

students from all the educational levels, but also different sectors of the society towards the

defence of the education as a human right (Valdebenito, 2011). However, it’s necessary to

point out that students and different sectors of the society have reacted against the

perceived crisis and privatization since its outset. Thus, the student movement has been

struggling to build structural change in the system, including the laws that define it. In this

struggle, students have resorted to different and innovative methods of raising their claims,

aiming also to include the whole society. The government has reacted with brutal levels of

repression (Ferretti, & Massardo, 2006; Grez, 2012). Students demand free and quality

education necessary for overcoming the high social inequalities that hinder the country’s

development (CONFECH, 2011). This article analyses the importance of establishing a free

public system and the requirement of quality in all levels of the educational system to

address the crisis. The quality of the education it is also a key aspect in both public and

private institutions. The student movement has included all these relevant factors of the

crisis in its demands, providing largely discussed proposals for building structural change.

These proposals, far from being utopic, are backed by strong technical analyses. For

example, a study by Frigolett, Mayol, Muñoz, and Pizarro (2011) demonstrate that

establishing a free public system is possible through three different sources of funding that

wouldn’t affect the stability of the country’s economy. These and many other proposals

also address flaws in the economic system that may represent additional source of

inequalities, like the misuse of inputs from Chile’s copper mining together with its

privatization. For a deeper understanding of these connected issues, we should analyse the

context of Chile’s recent history and its society.

                                                                                                               1 Penguin is the name coloquially given to primary and secondary school students because of their uniform resembling colors of a penguin.

 

 

4  

2. Why Right to Education in Chile?

Chile, a country of ca. 17 million people, suffers from enormous inequalities. The

average of the per-capita autonomous-income2 of the richest percentile (richest 1%) of the

population is about 260 times higher than that of the poorest ten per cent. Besides, almost

60 per cent of the population cannot satisfy their basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, clothing,

education, health, mobility, recreation, etc.). However, these figures remain hidden when

measuring growth by using indicators as GDP per capita (Durán & Kremerman, 2012; see

also Fig.1). In this context, experts have demonstrated that the private investment coming

from families is substantial in the sense that they can spend 40 per cent of their income only

in their children’s education (Durán & Kremerman, 2012). In the same way, evidence

shows that Chile’s structural inequalities are directly linked to the progressive privatization,

which not only maintains but also increases inequalities. The outset of the privatization

trend in the education system can be traced back to the times of Pinochet’s dictatorship,

with the education reform of 1981 (see DFL Nº1 art. 15).

Fig.1: Distribution of household’s autonomous-income by decile of autonomous per capita-income (Mideplan – Casen, 2009). The decile I has an autonomous-income of 64,361 Chilean pesos (CLP) (i.e. approx. USD 129). The decile IX earns CLP 1,149,137 (approx. USD 2,300). The decile X earns CLP 2,958,175 (approx. USD 5,920).

                                                                                                               2 Autonomous-income -also called primary income- is defined as all payments received by the household as a result of the possession of productive factors. Includes salaries and wages, self-employment earnings, the self-provision of goods produced by the household, income, interest, pensions, and retirement.” (Mideplan – Casen, 2009, p. 2. Own translation).  

 

 

5  

Two of the main changes imposed by the dictatorship were the progressively

decrease in the state funding given to public universities, and the allowance and promotion

of private education. This process was of much significance, since it created a market in the

system of education. With Pinochet’s reform, Chile became the first Latin American

country in charging tuition fees to students in public universities (OECD, 2009b). This

funding source represents today a large percentage of the budget of these institutions. They

have then been forced to increase the tuition fees every year -given the continuous decline

in state funding- thus promoting the self-financing logic. Other countries, through long

lasting strikes, were more successful in preventing attempts to introduce fees in public

higher education3. Throughout decades, the effects have worsened and Chile is nowadays

the country with the highest level of privatization in education (see Fig. 2), with public

universities getting less than 15% of their budget -as an average- from public funding (see

Contraloría, 2011). The remainder comes mostly from the students’ families through

education fees (see Fig. 3), which have become the second highest education fees in the

world4, just below the US5. This situation has devastating effects on the population. For

example, a student who gets a private loan to study will owe USD 13,000 after 4 years of

studies at the university, whereas the minimum wage in Chile is about USD 360 (Araya,

2012; BCN, 2011a; OECD, 2011). Thus, most of Chilean students are obliged to go in debt

if they want to access higher education, with the consequence of being forced to pay during

20 years after graduating to be able to return the loans they got from private financing

institutions (Rodríguez, 2011). It is not hard to recognize that this logic only deepens the

inequality the entire educational system drags. All the more, students of lower and medium

strata have not even been able to get these credits, thus being completely denied of the

possibility of accessing or remaining at the higher education level. The World Bank itself

states that this problem "is due to imperfections in capital markets" because "borrowers do

not accept the promise of future earnings as guarantee of payment" (World Bank, 1996; as

cited in Mora, 2005, p. 257. Own translation.) The figures put in evidence that the

education is no longer considered by the Chilean political class as a right associated to what

is known as “positive liberty.” This means that even though the middle and lower

                                                                                                               3 Famous is the case of the nine-month strike at the UNAM, in Mexico, 1999 (Sotelo, 2000). 4 Around USD 9,000 a year. 5 Around USD 22,000 a year.  

 

 

6  

socioeconomic strata are not “prevented” from being educated, they don’t receive the

minimum conditions to access it (see Uvin, 2004).

Fig.2: Share of private expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2000, 2005 and 2008) and change, in percentage points, of the share of private expenditure between 2000 and 2008. (OECD, 2011)

   

Fig.3: Distribution of public and private expenditure on educational institutions (2008) in tertiary education (OECD, 2011)

 

 

7  

To further describe the flaws of the system, we need to focus in the higher or

tertiary education in which a brief description should account the different institutions

comprising it. By and large, there are three kinds of institutions: the public or state-owned

institutions; the private institutions created before the education reform of 1981; and the

private institutions created after that reform (Beyer, 2001). The first two categories of

institutions mentioned above, are known as the “traditional” universities (Beyer, 2001, p.8).

On the other hand, the rest of the private educational institutions correspond to a large

number of institutions (much larger than the traditional group) that could be considered as

just sheer examples of private companies in the new “education market” (see Brunner &

Uribe, 2007). One aspect that may distinguish many traditional universities, in their original

or current functioning, from the later private educational institutions is the concept of

“public role”. This is understood basically as the responsibility the universities must have

towards solving problems of a society (Biesta et al., 2009). Different laws defining Chile’s

system of education have specified that the educational institutions in Chile should function

as non-profit institutions (see DFL Nº1 art. 15, LOCE art. 30, LGE Ch.II, sec.9); a

statement found also in laws enacted during Pinochet’s dictatorship. However, the private

universities indeed function as for-profit corporations that benefit from the “educational

business” by using multiple methods 6 . Evidence also shows that these university-

corporations are strong ideological apparatuses. Among their owners and shareholders we

account: parliamentarians, ministers and former ministers of the two main political

coalitions, religious sects like the Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ, and large

national and transnational business groups (Mönckeberg, 2007). These facts remind us to

what Walford (1990, p.19) states about the objectives of the education:

“For education is inherently political (…) it is necessary to recognise that one of the great

threads which runs through the history of education is the conflict between education as a

liberating and egalitarian influence and education as a way of justifying elitism and

privilege.”

                                                                                                               6 To cite an example, it has been demonstrated that owners of private universities are also owners of estate agencies, which at the same time own the land or buildings being rented by these universities, using the formula of leasing. This allows them avoiding taxes or harnessing the “legal gaps” to make profits. Unfortunately, because of their nature, these cases cannot be furher investigated (see Mönckeberg, 2007).

 

 

8  

Moreover, the scenario of Chile’s education ought to be also analysed in the global

context, so to get an idea of how and with what priority it is addressed. The low level of

public expenditure on education in Chile (0.3% of GDP in higher education), compared to

the average of OECD countries (1.0% of GDP in higher education) can be evidenced by

different indicators, being typical examples the public expenditure per student or the total

public expenditure on education as a share of GDP (OECD, 2009a). Table 1 (see appendix)

shows the latter indicator, contrasted with private expenditure (education fees, educational

extension, sale of patrimony and services, etc.). These figures seem to be in accordance to

what multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank promote and emphasize.

These institutions define education as an industry producing profits, or as an investment in

"human capital"-due to the higher revenue expected as a result of it (Gascón & Cepeda,

2008). This encourages neoliberal sectors to expand the idea that the education should be

seen as a “private good”, rather than a human right as subscribed in international

agreements. As an example of the latter we have the UN’s International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which free higher education is promoted:

"[H]igher education shall be equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by

every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free

education." (UN-CESCR, Part III, Art. 13, sec. 2d.)

In addition, UNESCO (1998a) poses strong arguments against the individualist pro-

privatization perspectives. These arguments help understand why establishing a free system

of education (in all levels) is a fundamental factor for establishing an education system with

a public role of building a sustainable and democratic society:

“The concept of educational income in personal benefit needs to be replaced by the concept

of external economy and especially by the concept of ‘social return’, which designates the

indirect benefits generated by the education in benefit of the society. These are difficult to

quantify, but this does not make them less real: the elevation of knowledge and skills have

an impact on the growth rate and competitiveness of the country; the investment made by

previous generations relapses in later generations; it is also a desire to fully exploit the skills

of those who are more capable (the concept of merit) of serving for development; raising

 

 

9  

the level of education affects the development of a more democratic culture and allows to

become distant and a resistant to arbitraries” (UNESCO, 1998A, p.50, quotation marks in

the original. Own translation.)

Another important aspect of higher education is the its effect in “social mobility”,

which is a way of helping people to get out from poverty. This is evidenced by the effect of

the different levels of education in people’s average income (see Fig.4). In this sense,

UNESCO (2009, p.10) sates that “[t]oday’s inequalities in education are tomorrow’s

inequalities in the distribution of wealth and wider opportunities for human development”.

Continuing with the strategic importance of a country's higher education accessible to all,

Angel Ruiz (2000) explains that:

“[T]he impact of actions in higher education not only has positive effects on national

product-management in a direct way, through professional cadres or through the developed

investigations, but also on the educational system itself. Higher education is a key part of

the progress of pre-university education, if properly developed” (p.227. Own translation.)

However, far from demonstrating a proper development, in Chile we have a

scenario where most of the students come disproportionately from the highest income

quintile. The advocates of privatization use this fact when they claim that the state funding

to higher education is regressive, since in this way it is favouring the wealthiest (see

Friedman, 1979; Hernes, 2002; OECD, 2009b). However, in this argument it’s not

acknowledged that it’s precisely the system and its privatization trend that has created such

an uneven proportion of rich and poor students in higher education. This unfortunate fact

has made the argument in favour of the privatization an apparently irrefutable truth.

Conversely, some experts claim that this is a serious mistake:

“(…) [A] total system funding –i.e. free higher education- has a positive effect on equality,

even without considering the effects of collection. In the case of Chile, free education

creates an unambiguous declining in the Gini coefficient”. (Corvalán & Sanhueza, 2011,

para. 3. Own translation.)

 

 

10  

Fig.4: Average income by level of education7 (Futuro Laboral based on CASEN, 2006; as cited in

DIPRES, 2010)

In addition, Corvalán and Sanhueza (2011) argue that establishing free education is

not a regressive policy neither confirms the slogan that by doing it “poor people would

finance the rich” (para. 16. Own translation.) These authors also cite results of Engel,

Galetovic and Raddatz (1999), giving support to the idea that establishing free education

has important redistributing effects:

“(…) Redistribution has an ‘unpleasant arithmetic’: it’s redistributed slightly when it takes

out from the rich, but it’s redistributed strongly when giving to the poor. This is to say,

taxes and subsidies have influence upon inequality mainly through its effect on low-income

sectors, and this effect is accentuated in highly unequal countries like ours.” (Engel,

Galetovic & Raddatz, 1999; as cited in Corvalan & Sanhueza, 2011, para. 5. Own

translation)

Moreover, to continue examining the negative effects of the logic of self-financing,

it’s important to consider another of its sources; namely, the private donors. In many cases,                                                                                                                7 The original histogram shows values in Chilean pesos (CLP) from 2007. For the purposes of this article and for the sake of legibility, the data were modified considering an approximate exchange rate of USD 1 = CLP 500. In order to estimate a real value, it can be used the exchange rate at the moment of writing this article, i.e. USD 1 = CLP 482,12 (Banco Central, 07/May/2012) which of course, produces no substantial difference.

 

 

11  

these donations have represented substantial amounts of money. Based on this it can be

described how private education and the self-financing of higher education institutions,

introduce “perverse interests” and biases affecting teaching and research, whether in

response to these donations or just as the intention of the owner of the private institution.

As examples, one can mention the businesses of private universities in Chile or the cases of

the California-Berkeley and Florida universities in USA (Mönckeberg, 2007; Warde,

2001). To describe these “perverse interests” it in more detailed terms, Collins (2000, para.

1-2) contends:

“Science is losing credibility. Conflicts of interest, biased studies and secrecy are

undermining science's reputation and its truth-seeking objective. Scientist-consultants who

are paid by industries but who serve as faculty professors frequently testify before Congress

and federal regulatory agencies without pausing to reveal their industry connections.

Science departments in public universities enter into multimillion-dollar contracts with

private corporations, yet few details are revealed about the nature of such agreements.

Medical and other science journals all too frequently publish articles without adequately

disclosing even major conflicts of interest.”

Thereby it seems to be worth asking us: what could have been hidden behind results

of research related to tobacco, atmosphere pollution, food contamination, or drugs and

medications? The described situation gives us another strong argument against the

privatization of the education or, in the opposite sense, to establish it as a human right. If

we still prefer to stay dubious, an ethic or at least responsible demand would be to cut the

public funding for institutions that have not been able to demonstrate non-profiting

functioning in their educational “service.” However, one can also step aside of the debate

related to the existence of private education. This must consider, though, that assuming the

existence of private education as an immovable reality involves taking over the negative

effects it entails. These effects become more important when acknowledging that private

institutions “prepare” and “indoctrinate” the majority8 of the professionals in Chile.

Moreover, evidence shows that private educational institutions have no “accreditation” of

its quality, which becomes relevant if we recognise that the negative effects can all be                                                                                                                8 CASEN (2009).

 

 

12  

embedded in a lack of quality in its broad sense (see Torres, Riquelme, & Guzmán, 2011;

BCN, 2011b).

Therefore, another central aspect in this debate draws upon our understanding of

quality of education and the ways we can measure and implement it. Although one can

naturally assume that right to education intrinsically refers to a quality education, it seems

convenient to explicitly refer to it. Unfortunately, the task of defining the concept of quality

escapes from the scope of this article. However, based on the arguments this article draws

upon we can still agree in some basic pillars that quality education must encompass. This

allows us to establish a connection between quality education, the public role expected

from it, and the kind of human beings this education should create. This connection

emphasises the importance of human rights, and particularly principles like solidarity,

pluralism, democracy, and self-determination adapted to a specific society (see Bellei,

Contreras & Valenzuela 2010; Carr and Hartnett 1996). These principles are to be

considered as important as technical considerations of quality. To this end, a key aspect is

the democracy within the institutions and their autonomy. The relevance of a democratic

functioning is relevant because it enables a broad participation of the community in

education principles and objectives. In addition, it deepens the understanding of this

principle in the community, creating the habit of its importance in daily life (Vaccarezza,

2006). On the other hand, the autonomy principle, which in Chile is enacted by law (see

LGE, art. 65), should always be seized and sheltered. The communities within the

education institutions and the society in general may focus in deepening these practices,

because they don’t require reaching the highest levels of the political system, but only local

reforms and agreements. While implementing these principles, the education institutions

may also collaborate and contribute to alternative methods of non-formal or popular

education. This may create symbiotic process that would strengthen the public role as well

as enabling the society to access a permanent and universal process of education. Non-

formal or popular methods of education have been successfully developed in many

countries in Latin America (Barreiro, 1978; Parra, 2007). Pavez (2003) poses that it is

specifically in these terms that public institutions are to be distinguished from private ones.

The former institutions should address society not only in their academic activity, but also

 

 

13  

in the way they are constituted. They should resemble the society, with its problems and

contradictions, thus enabling the students to develop values of coexistence, tolerance and

respect.

On the other hand, we should realize that private entities need not have any interest

in meeting social goals, either because these goals are not part of their mission and vision

statement, or because their existence relies specifically in not meeting them. Their raison

d'être is perhaps based on their ideological influence, their profit-making objective, or both

at the same time (see Brunner & Uribe, 2007; Mönckeberg, 2007).

3. Conclusions: Some possible paths

Consequently, the society can start finding the ways of implementing the basic

pillars of a quality public education, which conceives education as a fundamental human

right. Privatizing this right is equivalent to the privatization of knowledge, which is a joint

creation of humanity; thus by essence belonging to all. It is possible for the society to

define and start implementing the character of public education the country needs. In

addition, while building the basic pillars of this change also the continuity of the process

must be ensured. Thereby, the idea that defining all types and contents of the imparted

education is a unique and exclusive privilege of the state becomes inconvenient. What to do

then with the alternation of governments, each of them with their own different political

agendas? How does the project of public education with its social role react to this? The

focus should then be on demanding what the state is obliged to fulfil, given the respective

laws, and regardless of the coalition in the executive power. A failure in these terms would

condemn the government to illegality and illegitimacy. The society must focus in making

the state respect and ensure the right to quality education, and also prohibiting the for-profit

educational institutions, being both of these duties established by the constitution (see LGE,

2007). Recognising the education as a human right also requires a transition to a free public

system of education. Hence the society must demand the progressive increase in basal

funding for the public education budget to move in that direction. At the same time the

society and the communities within the institutions can develop the fundamental contents

 

 

14  

for a quality education with social goals, in all institutions -public or private- without

exception. Thus, the society may advance towards creating a system that: a) ensures a

permanent process of education during people’s whole lives; b) ensures access without

economic nor any kind of discrimination; c) contributes to the reduction of inequalities that

come from earlier education levels; d) plays a fundamental role to help solve society’s

problems; d) ends with the self-financing logic of public universities, moving towards a

free system. An additional requirement is that the institutions willing to get public funds

should remain free of ideological biases, market-influence or any religious imposition. The

doors of educational institutions should finally be opened towards the society in general. To

accomplish this, the formal education institutions should work together, in a symbiotic

process, with non-formal and popular initiatives of education. Thus, the ideological for-

profit perspective and the private institutions might succumb to these demands, prevailing

the commitment towards solving society’s problems. The student movement can take

strategic actions capable of getting popular support. These actions may include ways of

curtailing the possibility of using education as merchandise or as an ideology-transmitter.

Therefore, it becomes essential to prepare the society for the debate of allowing or not

profit-making in education, and make it conscious of the negative effects of its

privatization. The students, above all, have the duty to lead this process and search for the

unconditional social support it needs.

In conclusion, evidence shows that far from respecting, promoting or enshrining the

right to education in Chile, its privatization works towards an opposite direction. Besides,

several aspects demonstrate how the failures of the system would deepen if this privatizing

trend is maintained. However, this is not happening because the solution remains unknown,

but because there is no political will to concede what the majority of the society is

demanding as a solution. Worse, it is uncertain if the government is capable, and prone, of

strengthening the repression they have already used against the agents of change. Perhaps

these coercive ways won’t succeed in eliminating a seed of change that seems to be

growing, faster and stronger than ever.

 

 

15  

4. References Araya, C. (2012, April 21). 78 carreras superan en más de un 100% arancel de referencia [78

university programmes exceed in more than 100% the reference fees]. La Tercera. [online]

Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://diario.latercera.com/2012/04/21/01/contenido/pais/31-106812-9-78-carreras-superan-

en-mas-de-un--100-arancel-de-referencia.shtml

Banco Central [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.bcentral.cl/

Barreiro, J., (1978). Educación popular y proceso de concientización [Popular education and

awareness process]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

BCN [Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile] (2011a). Sueldo mínimo, sueldo base y derecho a

semana corrida [Minimum wage, basal salary and the right to a full week] [online].

Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.bcn.cl/guias/sueldo_minimo_slario_base

BCN [Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile] (2011b). Acreditación de la educación superior

[Accreditation of higher education] [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.bcn.cl/guias/acreditacion-de-la-educacion-superior

Bellei, C., Contreras, D., & Valenzuela, J.P. (Eds.). (2010). Ecos de la revolución pingüina.

Avances, debates y silencios en la reforma educacional [Echoes of the penguin revolution]

Chile: Universidad de Chile.

Beyer, H. (2001). Las Reformas de la Educación en Chile [The reforms of Chilean Education]. In F.

Larraín and R. Vergara (Eds.). La Transformación Económica de Chile (pp. 643-708).

Centro de Estudios Públicos, Chile.

Biesta, G., Kwiek, M., Lock, G., Martins, H., Masschelein, J., Papatsiba, V., & Simons, M.

(2009). What Is the Public Role of the University? A Proposal for a Public Research Agenda.

European Educational Research Journal. 8 (2).

Brunner, J., & Uribe, D. (2007). Mercados universitarios [University markets]. Santiago, Chile:

Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.

Carr, W., & Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the Struggle for Democracy: The Politics of

Educational Ideas. Open University Press.

CASEN [Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional] (2009) [online].

Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

 

 

16  

http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen2009/RESULTADOS_CASEN_2009.pd

f

Collins, R. (2000). Assuring Truth in Science a Must, Baltimore Sun [online]. Retrieved May 5,

2012, from

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-08-29/news/0008290081_1_nas-science-conflicts-of-

interest

CONFECH [Confederación de Estudiantes de Chile] (2011). Bases técnicas para un sistema

gratuito de educación [Technical bases for a free education system] [online]. Retrieved

May 5, 2012, from

http://www.elmostrador.cl/media/2011/10/Bases-técnicas-para-un-sistema-gratuito-de-

educación.pdf

Contraloría [Contraloría General de la República de Chile] (2011). Análisis de universidades

estatales [Analysis of state universities]. División de Análisis Contable. Área Empresas

Públicas y Universidades.

Corvalán, A., & Sanhueza, C. (2011, October 7). La educación superior gratuita no es una

política regresiva [Higher free education is not a regressive policy] [online]. Ciper.

Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://ciperchile.cl/2011/10/07/la-educacion-superior-gratuita-no-es-una-politica-regresiva/

DeGroot, G. (Ed.). (1998). Student Protest: The Sixties and After. Longman.

DFL [Decreto con Fuerza de Ley] Nº1 (1981). Art. 15, Ministerio de Educación Pública.

DIPRES [Dirección de Presupuestos] (2010). Términos Técnicos de Referencia Evaluación de

Impacto Programas de Becas de Educación Superior [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012,

from http://www.dipres.gob.cl/572/articles-70699_doc_pdf3.pdf

Durán, G., & Kremerman, M. (2012, April 2) Desigualdad en Chile: el problema es el 1% más

rico [Inequality in Chile: the problem is the richest 1%]. El Mostrador. [online]. Retrieved

May 5, 2012, from

http://www.elmostrador.cl/opinion/2012/04/02/desigualdad-en-chile-el-problema-es-el-1-

mas-rico/

Ferretti, P., & Massardo, J. (2006). El mayo de los estudiantes secundarios. Un movimiento

social emergente que pone en evidencia los rasgos sociales y culturales del modelo

neoliberal en Chile [The May of high school students. An emerging social movement that

evidences social and cultural features of the neoliberal model in Chile]. CPU-e, Revista de

Investigación Educativa, 3. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://cdigital.uv.mx/handle/123456789/5207

 

 

17  

Frigolett, H., Mayol, A., Muñoz, S., & Pizarro, R. (2011). Educación 2013 [Education 2013].

[e-book] Santiago, Chile: Fundación Terram. pp. 27. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.terram.cl/images/storiesterram_educacion_final2011.pdf

Gascón, P., & Cepeda, J. L. (2008). Globalización y mercantilización de la educación. Nuevos

retos para los Estados y las universidades públicas [Globalization and marketization of

education. New challenges for states and public universities]. Veredas. Número especial.

UAM-Xochimilco. México, pp.7-19.

Grez, S. (2012, January-February). Chile 2012: El movimiento estudiantil en la encrucijada [Chile

2012: the student movement at the crossroads]. Le Monde Diplomatique. Chile.

Gutiérrez T. & Caviedes C. (2006). Revolución Pingüina: La primera gran movilización del siglo

XXI en Chile [Penguin revolution: The first major mobilization of the XXI century in

Chile]. Ayún. Santiago, Chile.

Hernes G. (2002). Fundamentals of educational planning, in education privatization: Causes,

consequences and planning implications. UNESCO.

LGE [Ley General de Educación]. Ch. II, sec. 9.

LOCE [Ley Orgánica Constitucional de Enseñanza ]. Art. 30.

Mideplan [Ministerio de Planificación] – Casen (2009) [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen2009/distribucion_ingreso_casen_2009.p

df

Mönckeberg, M.O. (2007). El negocio de las universidades en Chile [The business of universities in

Chile]. Chile: Debate.

Mora, O. (2005). Las políticas educativas en América Latina: un análisis de la educación

superior desde la visión de la banca multilateral [Educational policies in Latin America: an

analysis of higer education from the vision of multilateral banks]. Apuntes del Cenes. II

Semestre de 2005 (pp. 249-262).

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2011). Education at a Glance.

OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2009a). Education at a

Glance. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing

OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2009b). La Educación

Superior en Chile. Revisión de Políticas Nacionales de Educación [Higher Education in

Chile. Review of National Education Policy]. OECD Publishing.

Parra, O. (2007). Diálogos con Freire para una pedagogía universitaria [Dialogues with Freire for

a university pedagogy]. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

 

 

18  

Pavez, J. (2003). Prólogo. In La educación no es una mercancía [The education is not

merchandise]. Le Monde Diplomatique.

Rodríguez, A. (2011, September 21). En Foro Económico Analizaron Financiamiento de la

Educación Superior [The financing of higher education was analysed in an economy

forum]. Rectoría Universidad Austral de Chile. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.uach.cl/organizacion/rectoria/noticia.php?codigo=12692

Ruiz, A. (2000). El destino de Costa Rica y la educación superior [Costa Rica’s destiny and higher

education]. Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Consejo Nacional de Rectores de

Costa Rica.

Sotelo, A. (2000). Neoliberalismo y educación. La huelga en la UNAM a finales de siglo.

[Neoliberalism and education. The UNAM’s strike at the end of the century]. Ediciones El

Caballito S. A.

Torres, V., Riquelme, G., & y Guzmán, J.A. (2011, September 29). Así opera el escandaloso

sistema de acreditación de las universidades [Thereby operates the scandalous accreditation

system of universities] [online]. Ciper. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://ciperchile.cl/2011/09/29/asi-opera-el-escandaloso-sistema-de-acreditacion-de-las-

universidades/

UN [United Nations] (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations [online].

Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://daccess-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement

UN-CESCR [United Nations] General Assembly (1966). International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights. 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p.

3. [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36c0.html

UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (2009). Overcoming

inequality: why governance matters. Oxford University Press.

UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1998a, October 5-9).

Conferencia mundial sobre la educación superior: La educación superior en el siglo XXI.

Visión y acción [World Conference on Higher Education: The higher education in the XXI

century. Vision and action]. Documento de trabajo. Paris.

UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1998b, October 5-9).

 

 

19  

Conferencia mundial sobre la educación superior: La educación superior en el siglo XXI.

Visión y acción [World Conference on Higher Education: The higher education in the XXI

century. Vision and action]. Documento de trabajo. Tomo I, Informe final. París.

UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1979, December 13).

Declaración de México. Conferencia regional de ministros de educación y de ministros

encargados de la planificación económica [Mexico declaration. Regional conference of

ministers of education and Ministers responsible of economic planning]. México, DF.

Uribe, A. (1974). El libro negro de la intervención norteamericana en Chile [The black book of

North American intervention in Chile]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Uvin, P. (2004). Human Rights and Development. Kumarian Press, Inc.

Vaccarezza, L. S. (2006) Autonomía universitaria, reformas y transformación social [University

autonomy, reforms and social transformation]. In Universidad e Investigación Científica.

Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20100614120356/universidad.pdf#page=28

Valdebenito, L. (2011). The quality of the education in Chile: A problem of concept and praxis?

Review of the concept of quality starting from two instances of student mobilization (2006

and 2011). Cisma. Centro Telúrico de Investigaciones Teóricas (CTIT), pp. 1-25.

Van Maanen, G. (1966). The international student movement: History and background.

International Documentation and Information Centre.

Warde, I. (2001). For sale: US academic integrity. Conflicts of Interest on the Campus. Le

Monde Diplomatique [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from

http://mondediplo.com/2001/03/11academic

World Bank (1996). World Development Report 1996. World Bank.

                             

 

 

20  

5. Appendix

Table 1: Expenditure in education (in 2006) as a share of GDP, according to their source of financing, i.e. public or private. (OECD, 2009a).

(1): The reference year is 2007. EU19: 19 countries of the OECD that are part of the EU and which data are available or can be estimated.