University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Título da fonte: | Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaio/article/view/275 |
Resumo: | The central theme of this article is the Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI), created by the federal government in 2004 aiming at the expanding access to higher education in the country. We analyzed the politics with reference to the proposal for the definition created by Lasswell (1936). I try to identify which actors will have won what, when and how, from the political process developed during the formulation of the program. My working hypothesis was constructed from Pinto (2004) which has suggested that private institutions of higher education would start to pressure the government for resources to overcome the situation diagnosed early in the last decade, when rates of idleness vacancies were walking up 740,000. I analyzed the main mechanisms PROUNI: access criteria, types of scholarships, the qualitative requirements of education and institutional control mechanisms created to monitor the implementation of policy. As a result, I conclude that social actors privatists were successful in influencing government decisions in favor of market expectations, resulting in the ratification of the thesis Downs (1999), for which the actors have their income affected by a policy public better informed and are always willing to participate in discussions that involve its definition. |
id |
CESGRANRIO_cebc6b626f0241053d6e52e6389e38e9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.localhost:article/275 |
network_acronym_str |
CESGRANRIO |
network_name_str |
Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when?¿Quienes son los ganadores? ¿Que es lo que lo ganan, como y cuando? Un analisis del Prouni.Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI): quem ganha o que, como e quando?PROUNI, educacion superior, politica públicaPROUNI; higher education, public policyPROUNI; educação superior; politica públicaThe central theme of this article is the Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI), created by the federal government in 2004 aiming at the expanding access to higher education in the country. We analyzed the politics with reference to the proposal for the definition created by Lasswell (1936). I try to identify which actors will have won what, when and how, from the political process developed during the formulation of the program. My working hypothesis was constructed from Pinto (2004) which has suggested that private institutions of higher education would start to pressure the government for resources to overcome the situation diagnosed early in the last decade, when rates of idleness vacancies were walking up 740,000. I analyzed the main mechanisms PROUNI: access criteria, types of scholarships, the qualitative requirements of education and institutional control mechanisms created to monitor the implementation of policy. As a result, I conclude that social actors privatists were successful in influencing government decisions in favor of market expectations, resulting in the ratification of the thesis Downs (1999), for which the actors have their income affected by a policy public better informed and are always willing to participate in discussions that involve its definition.El tema central de este artículo es el Programa Universidad para Todos (PROUNI), creado por el gobierno federal en 2004, destinado a ampliar el acceso a la educacion superior en Brasil. Analizamos la politica bajo la orientacion de la definicion que Lasswell (1936) propuso. Buscamos identificar dentro de ese contexto quienes fueron los ganadores, que es lo que obtuvieron, cuando lo hicieron y como, a partir del proceso politico desarrollado durante la formulacion del programa. La hipotesis de trabajo se construyo a partir de Pinto (2004), el cual sugiere que las instituciones privadas de educacion superior pasarian a presionar al gobierno solicitando recursos para superar la situacion diagnosticada a principios de la decada pasada, cuando las tasas de ociosidad de plazas eran superior a 740.000. Analizamos los principales mecanismos del PROUNI: criterios de acceso, tipos de becas, los requisitos de calidad de la enseñanza y de los mecanismos de control institucional creados para monitorear la implementacion de la politica. En consecuencia, se concluye que los actores sociales privatistas lograron influir en las decisiones del gobierno a favor de las expectativas del mercado, dando lugar a la ratificacion de la tesis de Downs (1999), para el cual los actores que ven afectados sus ingresos por una politica pública estan mejor informados y dispuestos a participar en los debates relacionados con su definicion.O tema central deste artigo e o Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI), criado pelo governo federal em 2004 visando à expansao do acesso à educação superior no pais. Analisamos a politica, tomando como referencia a proposta de definicao criada por Lasswell (1936). Buscamos identificar quais atores ganharam o que, quando e como, a partir do processo politico desenvolvido durante a formulação do programa. A hipotese de trabalho foi construida a partir de Pinto (2004), o qual sugeriu que as instituicoes privadas de educação superior passariam a pressionar o governo em busca de recursos para superar a situação diagnosticada no inicio da última decada, quando as taxas de ociosidade de vagas andavam acima de 740 mil. Analisamos os principais mecanismos do PROUNI: os criterios de acesso, os tipos de bolsas, as exigencias qualitativas do ensino e os mecanismos de controle institucionais criados para acompanhar a implementação da politica. Em razao disso, concluimos que os atores sociais privatistas tiveram exito em influenciar as decisoes governamentais em prol das expectativas do mercado, o que acarreta na ratificação da tese de Downs (1999), para o qual os atores que tem sua renda afetada por uma politica pública estarao sempre mais bem informados e dispostos a participar das discussoes que envolvem sua definicao.Fundação CesgranrioSouza, Marcio Rodrigo de AraújoMenezes, Monique2015-03-24info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttps://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaio/article/view/275Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação; v. 22, n. 84 (2014): Revista Ensaio - Jul./Set.; 609-6341809-44650104-4036reponame:Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online)instname:Fundação Cesgranrioinstacron:CESGRANRIO-2pt; en; esDireitos autorais 2016 Revista Ensaio: Avaliação e Politicas Públicas em Educaçãohttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2015-08-14T21:24:12Zoai:ojs.localhost:article/275Revistahttps://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaioONGhttps://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaio/oaiensaio@cesgranrio.org.br||fatimacunha@cesgranrio.org.br||alan@cesgranrio.org.br1809-44650104-4036opendoar:2015-08-14T21:24:12Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Fundação Cesgranriofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? ¿Quienes son los ganadores? ¿Que es lo que lo ganan, como y cuando? Un analisis del Prouni. Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI): quem ganha o que, como e quando? |
title |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
spellingShingle |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? Souza, Marcio Rodrigo de Araújo PROUNI, educacion superior, politica pública PROUNI; higher education, public policy PROUNI; educação superior; politica pública |
title_short |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
title_full |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
title_fullStr |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
title_full_unstemmed |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
title_sort |
University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when? |
author |
Souza, Marcio Rodrigo de Araújo |
author_facet |
Souza, Marcio Rodrigo de Araújo Menezes, Monique |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Menezes, Monique |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Souza, Marcio Rodrigo de Araújo Menezes, Monique |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
PROUNI, educacion superior, politica pública PROUNI; higher education, public policy PROUNI; educação superior; politica pública |
topic |
PROUNI, educacion superior, politica pública PROUNI; higher education, public policy PROUNI; educação superior; politica pública |
description |
The central theme of this article is the Programa Universidade para Todos (PROUNI), created by the federal government in 2004 aiming at the expanding access to higher education in the country. We analyzed the politics with reference to the proposal for the definition created by Lasswell (1936). I try to identify which actors will have won what, when and how, from the political process developed during the formulation of the program. My working hypothesis was constructed from Pinto (2004) which has suggested that private institutions of higher education would start to pressure the government for resources to overcome the situation diagnosed early in the last decade, when rates of idleness vacancies were walking up 740,000. I analyzed the main mechanisms PROUNI: access criteria, types of scholarships, the qualitative requirements of education and institutional control mechanisms created to monitor the implementation of policy. As a result, I conclude that social actors privatists were successful in influencing government decisions in favor of market expectations, resulting in the ratification of the thesis Downs (1999), for which the actors have their income affected by a policy public better informed and are always willing to participate in discussions that involve its definition. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-03-24 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaio/article/view/275 |
url |
https://revistas.cesgranrio.org.br/index.php/ensaio/article/view/275 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
pt; en; es |
language_invalid_str_mv |
pt; en; es |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2016 Revista Ensaio: Avaliação e Politicas Públicas em Educação http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2016 Revista Ensaio: Avaliação e Politicas Públicas em Educação http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Cesgranrio |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Cesgranrio |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação; v. 22, n. 84 (2014): Revista Ensaio - Jul./Set.; 609-634 1809-4465 0104-4036 reponame:Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) instname:Fundação Cesgranrio instacron:CESGRANRIO-2 |
instname_str |
Fundação Cesgranrio |
instacron_str |
CESGRANRIO-2 |
institution |
CESGRANRIO-2 |
reponame_str |
Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
collection |
Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Ensaio (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Fundação Cesgranrio |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
ensaio@cesgranrio.org.br||fatimacunha@cesgranrio.org.br||alan@cesgranrio.org.br |
_version_ |
1754832032779730944 |