Neves, Lúcia Maria Wanderley. (Ed.) (2004). Reforma Universitária do Governo Lula: Reflexões para o Debate. São Paulo: Xamã. Reviewed by Tristan McCowan, University College Northampton

Neves, Lúcia Maria Wanderley. (Ed.) (2004). Reforma Universitária do Governo Lula: Reflexões para o Debate. São Paulo: Xamã. 160 pp. ISBN 85 7587 030 0 Reviewed by Tristan McCowan University College Northampton May 14, 2005 This review is also available in Portuguese. Lula’s University Reform: reflections for the debate (2004) has a dual task. Like many books of its kind, it aims to present an understanding of the current situation, the historical processes that have brought it into being and the implications for the future. As such it contributes to the debate, both in the academic and the wider world, over how to interpret current neo-liberal policies, whether as a slow and sometimes painful (but ultimately successful) march towards universal wealth and well-being, or as a contradictory and ultimately disastrous reign of dehumanization and oppression. Yet its objectives go beyond bringing a general shift in society's understandings. It also aims to influence a specific political process – the University Reform currently being planned and implemented by the new Brazilian government of the former metalworkers’ union leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The University Reform process, which began officially in 2003 but whose roots go much further back, is supposed to involve a wide and lengthy debate amongst all interested parties, although the signs are that elements of discussion and participation will be more rhetorical than real. A key part of the reform – the University for All programme – has already been implemented by provisional decree without being passed through Congress. While there is significant divergence of opinion over the exact nature of the reform, most agree that some reform of the system is necessary. Brazilian higher education (HE) is in a lamentable state, offering places to less than 10% of the year group, and there are serious concerns about quality, particularly in the private sector. There are some first-class institutions among the federal and state universities but these are rapidly deteriorating on account of a cut of 25% in yearly funding and 70% in infrastructure investment between 1995 and 2002 (Folha de São Paulo, 2004). The main areas that the reform aims to address are the funding of the federal universities, their autonomy and the expansion of the system as a whole. Each of these issues is a battleground between privatizers and defenders of public education, and between supporters of the traditional research university and those who see a contribution to GDP growth and employment skills as the only justification for public expense. All this is occurring in the wake of an election result which for those who long for an end to the neo-liberal consensus was the most promising event of the new millennium. The euphoria surrounding Lula's election in December 2002, however, has given away to a (perhaps inevitable) disillusionment, with the policies of the Cardoso government being continued with only minor modifications. This ‘continuism’ is one of the two main themes of the book, as stated in the editor’s introduction: Reforma universitária do governo lula: reflexões para o debate has a clear position: the defence of the free-of-charge public university. The work aims to offer the reader some connections between themes presented by the government and the media as apparently independent. At the same time, it proposes to demonstrate that the Brazilian university reform has already been under way since the governments of Collor and FHC [Cardoso], and that the present moment constitutes a decisive step towards its definitive introduction. (p.5) The book is the work of the Collective of Education Policy Studies, a research group based in the Universidade Federal Fluminense in Rio de Janeiro, headed by Lúcia Maria Wanderley Neves. In 2003 the group produced a pioneering collection of studies focusing on the commercialization of HE in Brazil, through the expansion of the new entrepreneurial private institutions. The present book, however, is primarily concerned with the privatization of public institutions. It has six parts, with five thematic chapters and an interview with the head of the national university lecturers’ union, ANDES. The book opens with the preface by a former president of ANDES, and current lecturer at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Roberto Leher. He captures the general feeling of disillusionment: How is it possible that a government elected with the support of more than 50 million citizens, most of them frustrated with the neo-liberal experience of Cardoso, can maintain and deepen the macro-economic agenda in the same terms and even radicalize the preferential treatment of the private sector in social matters? (p.13) The preface traces the emergence of neo-liberalism out of the ashes of the post-war welfare state, and the strengthening of the notion of the pensamento único (‘one way of thinking’, ‘there is no alternative’). One element of this framework is the weakening of the public sphere, a ‘diluting of the frontier between the public and private’ (p.19), leading to a loss of basic rights, greater concentration of wealth and decreasing democratic control. The two prongs of the neo-liberal fork, in Leher’s view, are dependent capitalism and cultural heteronomy, stemming from global, and not just national, processes of exploitation and domination. Leher also provides statistical evidence of the crisis in the Brazilian economy, and the global poverty that has resulted from the implementation of neo-liberal policies. His faith as regards resistance to the project of the pensamento único lies in a coalition of forces including teachers’ unions, students’ unions, and social movements like the National Forum for the Defence of Public Education, which came to prominence in the 1990s with its National Education Congresses, uniting large sections of society around the defence of basic educational rights. The preface presents a theoretical framework which is adhered to throughout the book, providing a coherent foundation for the analysis of HE policy, while at the same time establishing an alternative orthodoxy that, as will be discussed below, may limit the appeal and reach of the work. The first chapter, by Kátia Regina de Souza Lima, has as its main theme the concept of ‘non-state public’. This is a form of the blurring of the public-private boundary raised by Leher. She quotes the former Minister of Education, Cristovam Buarque: [T]his sustainable, public, but not necessarily state, university should “be open to the possibility of receiving resources from private sectors which wish to invest in institutions, whether they be private or state; and both the private and public institutions should be structured so as to serve the public interest, without making them prisoners of the corporatist interests of the students, the lecturers or non-teaching staff”. (p. 34) Lima situates this move towards ‘non-state public’ within the development of Third Way politics championed by Tony Blair and underwritten by Anthony Giddens. With the abandonment of the class struggle, the new centre-left aims to create a social pact involving all, one which acknowledges that the capitalist system cannot and should not be overthrown, but must be softened and ‘humanized’. The Workers’ Party (PT) under Lula, in this way, is seen to have moved from class politics and a defence of universal rights to an acceptance of the global capitalist system and the orders of its police, the World Bank, IMF and WTO. Government efforts are now focused on regulating the various non-state service providers, and giving targeted support to the most needy. This diagnosis is backed up by the startling fact that far from bringing social spending back to an acceptable level after the cutbacks of the Cardoso years, the health and education budgets actually fell under Lula in 2003. Lima analyses a central document of the University Reform, the Bases for addressing the emergency crisis of the federal universities and schedule for the Brazilian university reform (2003). When this document was written, Cristovam Buarque was still Minister of Education, but was replaced in January of the following year by Tarso Genro, a former mayor of Porto Alegre. Genro was appointed specifically to carry out the university reform, and is said to have been favoured for the job on account of not being part of the university community. However, as Lima shows, the change of Minister may not have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the reform, since it is responding more to the demands of the ‘core’ elements of government – in particular the Treasury – than any educational need. The document acknowledges the crisis in the federal universities, the desirability of institutional autonomy and the need for a rapid increase in places in the public sector, for which a goal of 1.2 million places (doubling the current capacity) is proposed for 2007. Rather than increasing infrastructure investment and core funding, the document proposes increases in class size, the proportion of lecturers’ time spent teaching and distance education, all of which (while in a moderate form and in certain circumstances may have a positive effect on efficiency) in the form presented here would have serious implications for the quality of tuition and research. A further aspect of the reform is the purchase of university places in the private sector, to be allocated by the State free of charge to low-income students. Since the publishing of the book, the University for All (PROUNI) programme has come into force, allowing private universities tax exemptions in exchange for allocation of free places. The scheme has the advantage of being cheap (the universities pay little tax anyway) but all in all is a worrying development, leading to a continuation of the explosive expansion of the private sector with only a token democratization of access (10% of places in for-profits and 20% of places in non-profits). Transference of public funds to the private sector is a far greater concern in Brazil than in, say, the USA, since in the former the majority of private institutions are profit-making or highly commercialized non-profits with dubious quality of tuition and weak public commitment. The second chapter, by Angela Carvalho de Siqueira, widens the focus to the global level, assessing the influence of the supranational organizations. She traces the World Bank's growing interest in education since the 1980s and its increasing antagonism to public HE, which it sees as a frivolous source of inefficiency and a drain on the public purse that mainly subsidizes the rich. Adding to the pressure for the privatization of HE is the WTO, whose proposed GATS would undermine countries’ abilities to protect their public HE systems and allow powerful providers from the USA and Europe to squeeze their way into new and lucrative markets. Siqueira makes reference to a great myth of Brazilian HE, that of the private institutions as the source of greater opportunities for the lower socio-economic groups. The elitism of the public sector is undeniable – the few places available are guarded by a highly competitive exam called the vestibular – yet the data clearly shows that far from catering for the rest, private institutions have higher proportions of the wealthiest and lower proportions of the poorest in society (IBGE 2001). Another myth explored by Siqueira is that of the superior efficiency of the private institutions. Yet comparisons of expenditure between the two sectors often do not take into account public institutions’ provision of community services such as hospitals, not to mention the conducting of research. Lower costs per student in private institutions have more to do with lower quality tuition and lack of contribution to the public good than with efficiency (McCowan 2004). Justifications for the transfer of public money to the private sector on the basis of promoting equitable access are fundamentally flawed. Siqueira’s analysis provides a useful positioning of the Brazilian story within the global framework, and the issues discussed here will be familiar to readers around the world. One point of contention is the lack of attention paid to the failures of the welfare state: reference is made to the ‘growing commercialization of traditional human and social rights’ (p.50), yet these rights in fact are far from traditional in Brazil and have at no stage in history been upheld for more than a small proportion of the population. This failure does not, of course, reveal inherent defects in the public domain, and even less provides a justification for privatization. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge since it helps explain the apparent ease with which the World Bank and other organisms have implemented the neo-liberal agenda under the banner of a concern for ‘equity’. Marcos Marques de Oliveira in chapter 3 presents an analysis of the reform in relation to science and technology. The subtitle, ‘the innovation of the same’ refers to the essentially ‘continuist’ trajectory of Lula's government. Rather than focusing on socio-economic inequalities, this chapter discusses the position of the nation-state in the global system, and the dependence that results from an inability to develop new technology. Dependence on scientific research from core countries and the importing of technological innovations leaves Brazil in an adaptive role, producing basic industrial goods for external markets, without being able either to become a leading economic player or to choose its intellectual and cultural path. Like other areas, science and technology have suffered the strategies of reduction of public spending and transference of control to the private sector, as well as a reorientation towards commercial goals. The university thereby begins to lose its function as a site of original impartial research, as new tuition-only institutions emerge and the little research funding that remains is directed towards a few specialist institutes: From that time [the Uruguay Round of the WTO, 1986-1994] the financial institution pointed to the unviability of Latin America having a public university system in the European mould, based on the indissociability of tuition, research and community service in a universalist perspective. (p.84) The gradual disappearance of research from HE institutions, therefore, is seen both to create a situation of national dependence and to threaten the academic vitality and integrity of the institutions themselves. André Silva Martins and Lúcia Neves in the fourth chapter address institutional autonomy, perhaps the key issue of the university reform. Here can be seen a classic example of the political reinvention of words, where a policy is implemented under the banner of a term which holds widespread support but whose original meaning is fundamentally changed. The ‘autonomy’ originally demanded by the universities in Brazil involved democratic self-government and academic freedom, in the author’s words, “free from the pressures of the market and the political impositions of the executive power” (p.93), but with all funding guaranteed by the State. The ‘autonomy’ proposed in the new reform, however, refers to the granting of freedom for institutions to court their own funding: a ‘privilege’ interpreted here as a means of back-door privatization. Some would accuse the public universities, in demanding the former and not the latter form, of ‘wanting their cake and eating it’, since organizational and academic autonomy are only possible with financial self-sufficiency. There may be some truth in this. Yet what we are seeing here in fact is not a move from dependency towards financial self-reliance and autonomy, but a move from state funding and democratic accountability towards private funding and accountability to corporate commercial interests. The following passage from the end of the chapter explains the changes in the role of the University brought by this autonomy: The university autonomy of the Lula government makes possible the deepening of a process of massification of HE already under way, motored by a stimulus for the diffusion of knowledge to the detriment of its production, as well as a growing subordination of the objectives of the University to commercial interests…. From the ethico-political point of view, the Brazilian universities are preparing themselves to train intellectuals of a new type, with limited and specific technical competences and with a narrow and fragmented vision of the world, hindering the elaboration of a wider critique of current social reality. (p.108) There follows a second section by Angela Siqueira, providing a comparative perspective, with an analysis of the HE reforms in Chile and China. The fact that these two countries – so distant in politics and culture – have had similar reforms is testament to the extent of contemporary policy convergence. The author asks, perhaps optimistically, whether the negative experiences of these two countries cannot serve as a lesson to the architects of Brazil's change. Chile's reform, which gained momentum in the 1980s, involved the familiar elements of institutional diversification, student loans and the growth of the private sector. (There were eight private institutions at the start of the decade; at the end there were 180). Yet despite being championed as a model case by the World Bank, the reform, according to Siqueira, has not brought an improvement in equity and quality, and despite an overall expansion, has not significantly increased access to students from lower socio-economic groups. The Chinese reform, also inspired by the World Bank, involved the introduction of student fees, the removal of employee benefits such as free housing and health care, increases in the student-teacher ratio, the importing of distance education packages and an increase in service provision for companies and orientation of research towards commercial ends. The chapter ends with a return to the historical development of neo-liberal reforms in Brazil, where the public sector has resisted for much longer than countries like Chile, but which is now giving way, ironically under the leader many believed would turn the tide. The final chapter is refreshing both in its change of tone and in its presentation of clear proposals for an alternative to the (frankly rather depressing) diagnoses of the above authors. It consists of an interview with Luiz Carlos Gonçalves Lucas, head of ANDES, the national lecturers’ union which has had a prominent role in political affairs (not only those relating to HE) since its formation in 1980. Lucas starts by acknowledging that the draft university reform proposal does include a significant budget increase for the federal universities, but is sceptical of it on three fronts: firstly, since it is unlikely to be approved by a Treasury set on belt-tightening; secondly, because even this level of increase will not cover the expansion in the system; and thirdly, because there is no guarantee that the government will actually fulfil its promise (as has been seen countless times in recent years). Lucas goes on to present the position of ANDES in relation to the university reform, providing a blueprint around which the university community, and that part of the wider society committed to democratic public service, can rally. This is based on a conception of education as a public service, but where the existence of private institutions would not be disputed as long as they were non-profit and fulfilled substantial criteria of quality. All public funds, however, would have to go to public institutions. The indissociability of tuition, research and community service would be reaffirmed. Lecturers would be assessed, but their pay would not be based on evaluations that foster competition between colleagues and threaten the culture of collaboration. Institutions would have autonomy based on internal democracy and not on the ability to raise funds. These proposals (the bare bones of which have been presented here) represent a clear alternative to current models, and are not unrealistic, despite the dominant discourse concerning the inability of governments to fund public HE and the inevitability of privatization. They must, of course, be accompanied by an expansion of the system, and a democratization of entry procedures that would allow access to the vast majority of Brazilians who have no chance of attending an HE institution. The book as a whole is an unapologetic defence of a just and democratic HE system. It will certainly be opposed by those who see privatization as the only solution to institutional inefficiency, unresponsiveness and lack of productivity, and see all defence of the public education system as corporatist self-interest on the part of teachers and students. Among those who support public education, opinions will be divided by the highly uncompromising nature of the work. There is no attempt to engage in dialogue or to understand the neo-liberal position as anything other than a device of deception created by the international financial powers. Given that the book is engaged in a specifically political project – that of influencing a process of reform – its isolationist rhetoric and intransigence appears self-defeating, especially since the process in question is one based in a liberal democracy that depends on dialogue and political compromise. The authors, however, would argue that anything other than a bold defence of the public system in its purist form would be a betrayal of society and of their integrity as researchers. Sadly, this book is unlikely to be anything more than an annoying pin-prick in the vast belly of the political process – one which, in any event, is unlikely to involve a genuine debate. The first task set by the authors is therefore destined to failure, at least in the short-term: it may provide inspiration and intellectual ammunition to those who already support the public system, but it is unlikely to convert those in the neo-liberal camp who pull the strings. The value of the book, therefore, lies in its contribution as a work of scholarship to understandings of Brazilian and global policy frameworks. It is particularly insightful in the connections it draws between seemingly disparate policies and ideologies, and in its unmasking of rhetoric to reveal the substantial implications of the reforms. A limitation of the format of the book is the high degree of repetition, particularly as regards the contextualizations, caused by the juxtaposition of self-sufficient essays, each of which has its own extensive background material. Readers from outside Brazil may find that there is less attention paid to the specifics of Brazilian HE than they would like, with more emphasis given to the underlying ideological frameworks and global politics. This may be because the book is aimed primarily at Brazilian readers who are already familiar with their own HE system. Lula’s University Reform: reflections for the debate sticks resolutely to an anti-neo-liberal agenda in the face of the ‘end of history’, ‘humanized’ capitalism and left-wing parties weakened by concessions and alliances. Perhaps such positions are necessary to shake the world out of its lethargic slide towards the pensamento único. References Federal Government of Brasil (2003) Bases for addressing the emergency crisis of the federal universities and schedule for the Brazilian university reform. Report of the Inter-ministerial Work Group, Brasília, DF. Folha de São Paulo (2004) Reitores de federais criticam novo projeto. Folha de São Paulo, 12 April. IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas (2001) Pesquisa nacional por amostra de domicílios. Available online at http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/trabalhoerendimento/default.shtm McCowan, T. (2004). The growth of private higher education in Brazil: implications for equity and quality. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 453-472. About the Author of the Book Lúcia Maria Wanderley Neves is visiting professor in the graduate programme in education at the Universidade Federal Fluminense in Rio de Janeiro, and co-ordinator of the Collective of Education Policy Studies. She is author or editor of a number of books including Educação e política no brasil de hoje [Education and politics in today's Brazil] (Cortez, 1994) and Brasil 2000, nova divisão de trabalho na educação [Brazil 2000, the new division of work in education] (Xamã, 2000). About the Reviewer Tristan McCowan was co-ordinator of the Observatory of Latin American Education Policy between 2002-2003. He is now doing a PhD at the Institute of Education, London, and is part-time lecturer at University College Northampton. He is co-editor with Pablo Gentili of Reinventar a escola pública: política educacional para um novo Brasil (Reinventing the public school: Education policy for a new Brazil) (Vozes, 2003).