En marzo del 2020 hicimos un llamado para recibir contribuciones que documentasen y analizasen las estructuras de exclusión creadas, reproducidas y preservadas por la educación superior en América Latina. El objetivo era contribuir a una discusión sobre las posibilidades de re imaginar y diversificar la educación superior en cuanto a docencia, investigación, colegialidad, jerarquización y remuneración. Escribimos esto pensando en cómo los levantamientos feministas y sus revelaciones han desencadenado una serie de cuestionamientos y profundas críticas a los múltiples modos en que las universidades latinoamericanas no están cumpliendo con sus promesas, y con sospechas de que los efectos de la pandemia del COVID-19, que en ese momento recién comenzaban a verse en la región, podrían exacerbar las brechas de exclusión. Los manuscritos que recibimos, escritos en contextos de extrema adversidad, muchas desde la primera línea del desborde y sobrecarga académica, excedieron nuestras expectativas. Estos, contienen importantes y originales aportes teóricos, personales y metodológicos, que revelan los múltiples clivajes y proveen un conjunto de distintas narrativas y que revelan que lamentablemente la pandemia fue catalizador para el crecimiento de estas brechas.
Background: School feeding programs (SFPs) can play a crucial role in the emergency food and nutrition response, but there is a dearth of information on how SFPs operate during emergencies. Design and Methods: A rapid comparative assessment of 11 SFPs throughout Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from (1) systematic document search and (2) surveys with key informants (n = 23) about barriers/facilitators to modifications were systematically analyzed using a multiple case study approach. Results: During the pandemic, all SFPs continued (although continuation plans varied from a few days in Chile to >1 month in Puerto Rico) via food kits, food vouchers, and/or grab n’ go meals. The SFP implementation was highly dependent on the programs’ autonomy and financial support, which impacted their logistics to acquire and distribute foods during the pandemic. The types of foods offered in some SFPs suggest that established nutritional guidelines were not always followed. Key informants expressed concerns about the deterioration of the nutritional quality of foods offered during the pandemic and lack of community engagement that impeded distribution to the neediest. Conclusions: Results underscore the urgency for clear implementation guidance on how to modify SFP during emergencies. Public health implications include (1) allocation of autonomous resources to an intersectoral working group to safeguard nutritional benefits during emergencies, (2) strengthening efforts of SFP community engagement before and during emergencies, and (3) establishing guidelines of the types of foods that can be distributed to meet the nutritional needs of beneficiaries during emergencies.
Analizamos la adaptación del Programa de Alimentación Escolar chileno en el primer año de pandemia por Covid-19 desde una perspectiva comparada latinoamericana. Para ello, es presentada una sistematización de documentos oficiales a fin de revisar cambios y continuidades en aspectos formales de la adaptación, como la cobertura, contenidos nutricionales, y aspectos del plano logístico, incluyendo velocidad de adaptación, funcionamiento de cadenas de distribución y coordinación intersectorial. Empleamos técnicas de rastreo de proceso utilizando fuentes hemerográficas para registrar los problemas logísticas en la implementación y cómo fue experimentado por la ciudadanía en terreno. Finalmente, es propuesta una reflexión sobre cómo la larga trayectoria de este programa, que trasciende cambios en modelos de provisión social y antecede la instalación del modelo neoliberal, fue el sustento para la instalación de las capacidades infraestructurales, de coordinación y humanas necesarias para una rápida y eficaz adaptación.
This article uses Chile’s state milk program as a prism to map the trajectory of Chile’s social state through three combinations of political, economic, and welfare regimes. It traces the informal strategies deployed by citizens and local service providers and presents a historical typology of these encounters between 1954 and 2010, examining what commodification and decommodification mean to families in their everyday lives and discussing the implications of these findings to the literature on welfare regimes. The most important finding of this article is that regime type shapes but does not determine levels of provision. Welfare provision occurs in everyday interactions between state workers and citizens, and changes in regime type are filtered through and resisted through practices and strategies deployed in face-to-face encounters between local state representatives and citizens. There is often a large gap between central policy and these informal institutions that are created in everyday on-the-ground encounters between local state workers and citizens. Therefore, a second main conclusion of this article is that the informal institutions created at the local provision level coexist, compete, and clash with formal rules. A third conclusion of this article is that, to some extent, people who are regulated by the state also have some capacity to regulate their exchanges with the state, and, at the same time, state workers who organize and are organized by the state to distribute resources exercise discretionary power when implementing social programs.
favorable, a city with an uneven civil society and a less favorable political context (São Paulo) and a city with the least favorable context, Salvador, with a demobilized civil society and an antagonistic political context. Perhaps not surprisingly, in the two most favorable cities, all three kinds of participatory institutions work, while in the middle case, "power sharing" and "ratification" kinds of institutions work, and in the least favorable case, only "ratification" works. Much as the book sets an important corrective and helps frame the next set of discussions about participatory democracy in Brazil, it also raises questions for further discussion. The first is whether the attention to "successes" and "failures" of particular institutions sacrifices attention to the processes of implementation, adaptation, and negotiation that led to those outcomes. In other words, the understanding that for participatory budgeting to succeed, a consensus or near-consensus in political society is necessary alongside a mobilized civil society is almost a circular argument, and tends to obscure the controversies and failures that went into those successes. It could be argued that mobilized civil society and the willingness of political society are as much outcomes of the successes as conditions for them. A second question the book raises is the context of the production and authorship of scholarship on participation. In a bit of a rhetorical flourish, Avrtizer declares himself beyond the "triumphalist phase" of participatory studies in Brazil. One objection, of course, is that the cited authors of said phase (including this one) also understood themselves to be beyond triumphalism, and none quite fit the characteristics of the description Avrtizer provides. But more to the point, the move beyond it is not purely internal to the logic of argumentation. Instead, the '"triumphalism" was very much a product of its time, a time of enchantment with democratic possibilities and with the Workers' Party, just as the current book is a product of a later, soberer time after years of more ambiguous combinations of accomplishment and disappointment with the Lula national administration. In this context, Avritzer's book does have a measure of triumphalism, as it has lost none of the hopefulness about participation's transformative potential that drove his earlier work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.