TRAINING A NEW GENERATION OF LEADERS Woodrow Wilson Center Reports on the Americas • #3 Edited by Joan Dassin, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Amelia Brown W TRAINING A NEW oodr GENERATION OF LEADERS ow W Public Administration and Public Policy Graduate ilson Center Repor Programs in Latin America Elizabeth Balbachevsky Joan Dassin Danae de los Ríos ts on the Americas • #3 Ana M. García de Fanelli Efraín Gonzales de Olarte José Augusto Guilhon de Albuquerque Janet Kelly Rollin Kent Alejandra Mizala Rosalba Ramírez Edited by Joan Dassin, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Amelia Brown Latin American Program WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS LEE H. HAMILTON, DIRECTOR BOARD OF TRUSTEES Joseph A. Cari, Jr., Chair; Steven Alan Bennett, Vice Chair. Public Members: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United States; William R. Ferris, Chair, National Endowment for the Humanities; Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; Colin L. Powell, Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M. Small, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Private Citizen Members: Carol Cartwright, John H. Foster, Jean L. Hennessey, Daniel L. Lamaute, Doris O. Matsui, Thomas R. Reedy, Nancy M. Zirkin. WILSON COUNCIL Charles S. Ackerman, B.B. Andersen, Cyrus A. Ansary, Charles F. Barber, Lawrence E. Bathgate II, Joseph C. Bell, Richard E. Berkowitz, A. Oakley Brooks, Thomas J. Buckholtz, Conrad Cafritz, Nicola L. Caiola, Raoul L. Carroll, Scott Carter, Albert V. Casey, Peter B. Clark, William T. Coleman, Jr., Michael D. DiGiacomo, Donald G. Drapkin, F. Samuel Eberts III, J. David Eller, Sim Farar, Susan Farber, Barbara Hackman Franklin, Morton Funger, Chris G. Gardiner, Eric Garfinkel, Bruce S. Gelb, Steven J. Gilbert, Alma Gildenhorn, Joseph B. Gildenhorn, David F. Girard-diCarlo, Michael B. Goldberg, William E. Grayson, Raymond A. Guenter, Verna R. Harrah, Carla A. Hills, Eric Hotung, Frances Humphrey Howard, John L. Howard, Darrell E. Issa, Jerry Jasinowski, Brenda LaGrange Johnson, Dennis D. Jorgensen, Shelly Kamins, Anastasia D. Kelly, Christopher J. Kennan, Michael V. Kostiw, Steven Kotler, William H. Kremer, Dennis LeVett, Harold O. Levy, David Link, David S. Mandel, John P. Manning, Edwin S. Marks, Jay Mazur, Robert McCarthy, Stephen G. McConahey, J. Kenneth Menges, Jr., Philip Merrill, Jeremiah L. Murphy, Martha T. Muse, Della Newman, Paul Hae Park, Gerald L. Parsky, Michael J. Polenske, Donald Robert Quartel, Jr., J. Steven Rhodes, John L. Richardson, Margaret Milner Richardson, Larry D. Richman, Edwin Robbins, Robert G. Rogers, Otto Ruesch, B. Francis Saul, III, Timothy R. Scully, J. Michael Shepherd, George P. Shultz, Raja W. Sidawi, Debbie Siebert, Thomas L. Siebert, Kenneth Siegel, Ron Silver, William A. Slaughter, Wilmer Thomas, Norma Kline Tiefel, Mark C. Treanor, Christine M. Warnke, Pete Wilson, Deborah Wince- Smith, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., Paul Martin Wolff, Joseph Zappala, Richard S. Ziman ABOUT THE CENTER The Center is the living memorial of the United States of America to the nation’s twenty-eighth president, Woodrow Wilson. Congress established the Woodrow Wilson Center in 1968 as an international institute for advanced study, “symbolizing and strengthening the fruitful relation- ship between the world of learning and the world of public affairs.” The Center opened in 1970 under its own board of trustees. In all its activities the Woodrow Wilson Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, sup- ported financially by annual appropriations from Congress, and by the contributions of founda- tions, corporations, and individuals. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center publications and programs are those of the authors and speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center staff, fellows, trustees, advisory groups, or any individuals or organizations that pro- vide financial support to the Center. | iv | TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface vii Joan Dassin, Joseph S.Tulchin, and Amelia Brown Chapter 1 1 Public Policy Training Programs in the United States: Characteristics and Linkages to Latin America Joan Dassin Chapter 2 55 Graduate Programs in Public Policy and Public Administration in Mexico: An Evaluation Rosalba Ramírez Rollin Kent Chapter 3 101 Public Policy Education in Venezuela Janet Kelly with the collaboration of Abelardo Daza Chapter 4 147 Public Policy Analysis at the Graduate Level in Brazil: A Case of Institutional Underdevelopment José Augusto Guilhon de Albuquerque Elizabeth Balbachevsky | v | Chapter 5 169 Public Administration and Public Policy Graduate Programs in Argentina and Their Relation to the U.S. Model of Public Policy Training Ana M. García de Fanelli Chapter 6 201 Graduate Training in Public Policy in Peru and the Role of the Social Sciences Efraín Gonzales de Olarte Chapter 7 231 Public Policy Programs in Chile: Characteristics, Requirements, and Expectations for Future Development Alejandra Mizala Danae de los Ríos List of Contributors 275 | vi | PREFACE he end of the Cold War, the advent of the internet, and increasing economic integration are among the many factors that are adding T new complexities to the task of policymaking in countries around the world. In addition, more open governments in many places have meant that not only public officials but also decisionmakers in the private and non-profit sectors now participate in policymaking and have a stake in the outcomes across a broad spectrum of economic, political, and social policy issues. Regardless of which sector they represent, decisionmakers need broad-based policy analysis skills, both quantitative and qualitative, that will enable them to make effective, accountable choices when faced with com- plicated trade-offs and options. In Latin America, as elsewhere, this height- ened need for skilled policymakers raises the question of where and how such individuals can obtain advanced education and training that both meet worldwide standards for the public policy field and are also relevant to regional conditions. To assess the state of public policy education in Latin America, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC launched a research project entitled “Strengthening Graduate Training in the Applied Social Sciences and Public Policy Analysis in Latin America” in early 1999. Funded by the Ford Foundation, the project was designed as an eighteen-month planning activity that would produce preliminary surveys of the institutional capacity for gradu- ate level training in public policy in six Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Recognizing the influence of U.S. educational models in this field on Latin American insti- tutions, the project also included a survey of graduate level public policy and public administration programs in the United States. The seven chapters that follow are the results of this initial research. They offer an overview of public policy education in Latin America, pro- viding a groundwork for future efforts to improve the quality of public policy education in the region.1 Originally presented as papers at a June 1–2, 2000 meeting at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, they have since been revised for this publication.While the availabil- | vii | Joan Dassin, Joseph S. Tulchin, and Amelia Brown ity of data varies significantly and certain elements are more salient in some cases than in others, each study includes three central features: 1) an analysis of the educational and institutional context for the public policy and/or administration programs in the particular country,including a dis- cussion of the demand for such programs and their relation to other high- er education offerings; 2) an analysis of the instructional models utilized in the various programs, particularly in regard to the kinds of advanced train- ing offered in the applied social sciences; and 3) a discussion of the degree of institutional development found in the public policy and public adminis- tration fields, indicated by such factors as continuity of funding and fre- quency of connections to national education agencies and to other similar regional and international programs.The conclusions are mixed, but each study includes specific suggestions for strengthening national capacity to provide advanced training in the public policy field. The first case study examines public policy programs in the United States as a model for Latin American public policy programs. U.S. pro- grams place a heavy emphasis on quantitative and empirical analytical methods. In addition, they also include important non-economic compo- nents, such as courses on the relative importance of government, business, and non-profit sectors in the policy process. U.S. programs also have a strong practical element, typically requiring students to apply their knowl- edge to real-world policy issues in some form of practicum or policy analysis exercise. Closely supervised by a student’s professors and peers, these exercises often lead to subsequent employment opportunities. At present, Latin American public policy programs do not typically incorporate these elements.While Latin America has a relatively long tra- dition of master’s programs in public administration, master’s programs in public policy that follow the U.S. model—discrete interdisciplinary pro- grams that integrate economics, quantitative methods, management, and political analysis—are much more recent.Typically,such