University for All Program (PROUNI): who gets what, how and when?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Souza, Marcio Rodrigo de Araújo
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Menezes, Monique
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