Why Latin America's universities deserve better
The economic fall-out of the Covid-19 pandemic has a long way to play out. As many countries still struggle to respond to the terrible impact of the disease, there is one region which has been hit much harder than any other – Latin America. Covid-19 is having a particularly devastating impact on the region’s higher education.
Economic data tells a grim story. While global GDP fell back by 3 per cent in 2020 in response to the pandemic, Latin America’s contraction of 7 percent was the sharpest anywhere in the world. A whole raft of supporting data spells out the bleak backdrop for Latin America’s universities. According to the IMF, poverty is estimated to have increased by 19 million people, and inequality, increased by 5 percent compared to pre-crisis levels. The pandemic is set to leave long-lasting damage to human capital from school closures, which were longer than in other regions.
It is an uneven picture. Chile, which benefits from one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, is likely to see its economy bounce back this year to its pre-pandemic GDP level. Much of the rest of the continent has been hampered by slow vaccination programmes. The true extent of the pandemic may not be known for some time. But one sobering assessment by The Economist newspaper indicates that Latin America and the Caribbean has, during the pandemic, the highest background excess death rates in the world. This has long-term implications for higher education financing.
“Two-thirds of low- and lower-middle-income countries have cut their education budgets since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
According to the World Bank’s Education Finance Watch 2021 report, two-thirds of low- and lower-middle-income countries have cut their education budgets since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. A third of upper middle-income countries have reduced their education budgets. It warns “these budget cuts have been relatively small thus far, but there is a danger that future cuts will be larger, as the pandemic continues to take its economic toll, and fiscal positions worsen”. Latin American universities are likely to feel the brunt of this economic pain given its economy has been hit hardest.
The logic might follow that international philanthropy may well step in and mitigate the worst financial excesses of the pandemic on higher education. But the evidence for that looks unconvincing.
Indiana University’s 2020 Global Philanthropy Tracker concludes cross-border philanthropy exceeds $834bn. While Latin America is a big beneficiary of remittances, one form of philanthropy as determined by Indiana, private philanthropy – giving by foundations and trusts – remains low. In our view, extraordinarily so.
“Why are the great philanthropic institutions in the US so ambivalent in supporting philanthropy in Latin America, and especially in funding Latin American higher education?”
According to the OECD’s Centre on Philanthropy, around $1.6bn in philanthropy went to Latin America from a sample of the 30 biggest philanthropic foundations in the world. 90 percent of that was pumped into the region by BBVA Microfinance Foundation, an arm of a Spanish financial institution. Less than $200m went to causes beyond microfinance.
The Gates Foundation represents the most startling illustration of how Latin America and the Caribbean is overlooked compared to the rest of the world. Between 2010-19 Gates global giving topped $67bn. But, according to Gates own data, direct funding to Latin America is paltry. The region’s universities received barely $24m in those ten years; in contrast European universities received over $2bn. In 2019, Gates awarded $1.6bn to 202 universities globally. Not one of those universities was in Latin America.
It’s not just Gates that has pulled back funding from Latin America. OECD statistics suggest some of the biggest foundations have been not present or are retreating from the region. Philanthropic funding can be uneven so it remains to be seen if the drops in funding are permanent. But the point remains no less relevant. Why are the great philanthropic institutions in the United States (US) so ambivalent in supporting philanthropy in Latin America, and especially in funding Latin American higher education?
There appears to be no clear answer. One explanation provided by a senior official at UNESCO is that there is a fierce culture of independence among Latin America’s universities. Accepting donations from outside sources, especially foreign donors, carries the risk that impartiality may be seen to be compromised.
This is a characteristic which may distinguish Latin America from other regional cultures. Latin America has maintained a longstanding non-commercial open access research approach where scientific publication is handled by academic institutions. Scholarly output – the production, publication, distribution, and consumption of research literature – has operated historically without fees, and has been financed primarily via public funds destined for education and research, mainly through academic institutions. It creates for a less “commercial” culture.
But while academic independence may be the explanation in some instances, there are likely to be other reasons. Afterall, arguments of academic integrity hasn’t prevented institutions elsewhere in the world from accessing international philanthropy.
Another explanation given is that universities in Latin America are often bound by research agendas which tend to be more regionally-focussed than global. For example, Brazil is reported to spend about $1 billion per year on agricultural research reflecting the importance of agriculture to its economy. But that doesn’t seem to count for much with foundations such as Gates, a major funder of crop and agricultural science.
A more persuasive argument is about visibility, fundraising culture and infrastructure. Poor visibility and limited opportunities for engagement compounded by a language barrier may contribute to Latin American missing out on the boom in global philanthropy which is set to be a feature of the coming decade.
Indiana University explains that “a global increase of middle-income and high net worth individuals and diaspora communities will lead to more engagement in cross-border philanthropy”. It also argues that technology will make cross-border charitable giving easier, faster, and safer. Logically Latin America’s universities should be well-placed to take advantage of the rise in global giving since so much philanthropic wealth resides in the US, and it enjoys deep social, trade and economic ties to Latin America.
But is it simply a question of university leaders in Latin America beating a path to funders in Silicon Valley or New York to pitch their wares? That model is starting to look outdated and smacks of inequity, rewarding as it does those institutions with the resources to invest in significant engagement efforts and preparing procurement-like applications. A mind shift is needed among some of the big funding institutions, especially those in the US, about where they should be investing their capital internationally, and how they should be identifying the institutions that are most in need and where the potential is greatest.
“The uncomfortable truth is that US institutional philanthropy has reinforced for too long an Anglo-Saxon or Western European bias which appears at variance with a modern America”
The US should care about Latin America and its universities. Universities matter because they are pathways out of poverty and pillars of a stable society. The knowledge that comes out of a university benefits everyone – at the nation-state level and globally. The current soul-searching in the US about racial inequality is, in truth, the prelude for a much broader conversation about greater global equity which is set to challenge, unsettle, jar American society in the next decade. Existing university philanthropic funding patterns, skewed as they are, often to privileged institutions in the global north, already look out-of-step with the zeitgeist.
The uncomfortable truth is that US institutional philanthropy has reinforced for too long an Anglo-Saxon or Western European bias which appears at variance with a modern America, in which nearly 20 per cent of its population is Hispanic.
The US’ historic vehicles of soft power – its philanthropic foundations – could and should make a far greater contribution in supporting the institutions of Latin America’s fine and longstanding higher education sector. That it does so little is a poor reflection on the current leadership of this rapidly growing collective.