Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/polsoc

Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?§ Pablo Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido a,b,*, Nadia Rubaii c[3_TD$IF], Gabriel Puro´n d a

Alberto Lleras Camargo School of Government, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia b Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali, Colombia c Binghamton University, United States d Centro de Investigacio´n y Docencia Econo´micas – CIDE, Mexico

Abstract In this paper, we explore the state of the art of public affairs education in Latin America and compare it with the evolution and current character of MPA/MPP education in the United States. In doing so, we are able to identify ways in which there is a Latin American model (or at least identifiable patterns) of public affairs education in sharp contrast to what might be expected in terms of emulation of international programs, particularly from the United States and Europe. As the basis for our analysis, we rely on three main sources of information. We use extensive data gathered from a survey of nearly 50 programs of public affairs in Latin America, which we administered in 2015 in order to identify patterns and trends in public affairs education in the region. Then, we compare our data with two data bases: (1) the Atlas of Public Policy and Management (Carleton University and the University of Toronto), which provides an international profile of programs, and (2) NASPAA’s Data Center, which summarizes the characteristics of NASPAA-member programs based on Annual Survey data. This comparison allows us to establish to what degree there is a phenomenon of isomorphism in public affairs education between countries in Latin America and similar programs in North America. We finish this article exploring the implications of such results, for the quality and appropriateness of education in government affairs in Latin American countries. # 2016 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. [10_TD$IF]Keywords : Public affairs education; Latin America; Policy transfer

1. Introduction Although the evolution and current status of public affairs education in the United States is well documented, less clear is how the field has developed in Latin America (Rubaii, 2016). Relationships between United States and Latin American public policies and public management practices have been examined across multiple disciplines, including political science, international relations, development, economics, public policy and public administration. In these contexts, Washington – acting directly and independently or indirectly and via various international organizations such §

The authors thank the valuable research assistance provided by Nestor Pe´rez, research assistant of the Alberto Lleras Camargo School of Government at Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. * Corresponding author at: [6_TD$IF]Alberto Lleras Camargo School of Government, Universidad [7_TD$IF]de [8_TD$IF]los Andes, Colombia E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Sanabria-Pulido), [email protected] (N. Rubaii), [email protected] (G. Puro´n). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004 1449-4035/# 2016 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

2

as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Inter-American Development Bank – is often portrayed as having considerable influence on practice of public affairs in Latin American countries. Given the evidence of isomorphism in the realm of public policies and public management practices, and a concurrent movement for greater autonomy to develop more tailored responses to public problems, it becomes reasonable to examine to what extent there is evidence of similar pressures or outcomes with respect to public affairs education. Public affairs education is a more recent trend in Latin America’s higher education institutions than in their US counterparts. The last two decades have shown a growing presence of graduate programs in public administration/ policy across Latin America. Such programs have grown with important differences and diversity in terms of topics, focus, methods and scope. While a significant number of them have adopted models similar to the MPA/MPP model of the U.S., others show different flavors which may be due to modeling after European programs or something more independent and unique. Thus, it makes sense to inquire whether public affairs (PA) education in Latin America is evolving toward an own perspective or reflects a certain degree of isomorphism. In this way, this article attempts to analyze the patterns and trends that characterize PA education and then compare to analogous programs in the United States with that purpose on mind. In Section 1, we explore the main literature that has aimed to explore the state of PA education at the regional level with attention to the absence of published research focused on Latin America. Then, Section 2 provides a glance of graduate education in public affairs in this region based on our survey data. Section 3 compares Latin American public affairs education to the international reference, particularly to the United States, as a means of examining our question of whether there is emulation in graduate programs in Latin America. In the conclusions section we summarize our findings and discuss implications. 2. Literature review This research is placed within the broader study of policy transfer/isomorphism vs. independence between developed and developing economies. Although not well-studied with respect to our particular area of interest, namely graduate public affairs education in Latin America, the roots of this research are extensive with respect to the management of public organizations, the design and implementation of public policy, and the education for public affairs more broadly. While some of this literature examines the question of whether public organizations mimic or are forced to copy private business organizations (see, for example, Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004), the majority of studies examine the extent to which the United States influences other countries, particularly those in the Global South. Notably, Dabene (2009) devotes an entire chapter of his book The Politics of Regional Integration in Latin America to institutional isomorphism. Whether the language of these studies uses the ideologically-charged terminology of neoliberalism or a Washington Consensus model, or if they use more the academic references to policy diffusion or policy transfer, similar questions are asked regarding these tensions. In the realm of higher education policy specifically, studies of higher education quality assurance have examined the extent to which countries have emulated United States standards, processes and institutional arrangements, and how they have tailored their practices to their unique circumstances. For example, Jarvis (2014) documents a coercive institutional isomorphism in the evolution of quality assurance (QA) regime in Hong Kong, whereas Rubaii and Lima Bandeira (2016) identify elements of similarity and difference – in relation to the U.S. model and relative to each other – in the QA systems developed in Colombia and Ecuador. On the one hand, given the extent to which public policy analysis in the United States is a model for practices elsewhere in the world, it should not come as a surprise U.S. higher education programs in this field will also inform programs elsewhere, particularly in developing countries (Geva-May & Maslove, 2006). On the other hand, program design and pedagogy are expected, to some extent, to reflect a society’s particular history, values and institutions (Geva-May, Nasi, Turrini, & Scott, 2008). For the purposes of this literature review we have focused on research that compared the education methods and curricula of regions renowned for their established and long running programs in Public Affairs, such as Europe and the United States, vis-a`-vis more recent programs in developing regions like Latin America and Asia, among others. This is a process of transfer of practices and modes of operation that takes place through different channels. The policy transfer literature (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000), has illustrated how ideas, institutions and practices travel from one country or region to another. Higher education, then, has been identified as one of the most effective channels through which such concepts and practices are adopted and adapted from country to country (Stone, 2001). But how does this transfer has occurred in public affairs education itself is a less frequent endeavor in the literature. We aim to fill that gap Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

3

by exploring potential ways through which public affairs education in Latin America has been influenced by approaches in public affairs education in developed countries like the US and in Europe. The pages of NASPAA’s Journal of Public Affairs Education are filled with examples and discussions about curriculum content and pedagogy in United States public affairs education. Although more common in recent years, comparative and international perspectives still represent a small proportion of articles. Other journals in the field (Public Administration Review, for example) provide discussions of the evolution of the discipline with less explicit attention to curricular or program design. Yet, the comparative approach remains as an unexplored endeavor that is highly relevant considering the rapid growth of such programs in developing countries. Public affairs education in the United States has evolved largely at the professional master’s level, with the majority of programs having a historical base in political science and a smaller percentage growing out of management. Public administration and public policy have developed as subfields within political science and public management has developed as a variation of generic management; in both instances, programs have developed greater independent identity and in most cases separated from those disciplinary bases over time. It is now common to have MPA and MPP programs in the US within stand-alone schools of public affairs, public service, public policy, etc. In examining whether Latin American public affairs education represents an independent model or emulation of the U.S. model our underlying premise is that there is value in both copying practices developed elsewhere and in tailoring a program to meet particular local needs. In our review of the literature, we found that most of the work being done in this type of direct comparison is being published by the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE) and that it is largely focused on African and Asian schools and programs. This vein of work aims to establish whether public affairs schools in developing countries are balancing local needs on one hand and international state of the art practices on the other as part of their teaching practices. Relatively little attention is directed to the Latin America, but the research based in other regions offers insights into the importance of the issues and potential findings. 2.1. Public affairs education in Africa Studies of public affairs education on the African continent tend to compare the basic curriculum thought to be common to many MPP-MPA programs like Microeconomics and Policy Analysis with more localized versions of classes like Democratic Transition and Public Policy. By directly comparing public affairs curriculum in the United States and Nigeria, Ewoh (2014) found that the coursework in Nigeria was a mix of typical leadership and intergovernmental relations courses with a touch of locally-relevant courses representing the challenges of a new emerging democracy and a deep history of corruption. Other locally-relevant training was highlighted in the Nigerian ethics classes that attempted to reshape the way public service was approached, to discourage self-serving approaches, and to promote more of a sense of ownership in the public sector’s successes and failures. A concerted effort to make local-relevant knowledge was lacking in Nigeria and may be needed in order to achieve a more effective public affairs education (Ewoh, 2014). In a study which used NASPAA standards as the basis for comparison with the curriculum of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Haruna and Kannae (2013) found evidence that a lot of what NASPAA considers state of the art in public administration teaching is sometimes directly adapted to the GIMPA teaching practices. Additionally, cultural filters and difficulties were found to be challenging when adapting the international standards to the Ghana teaching environment. GIMPA’s case in particular brings this obstacle to the fore in which a kind of cherry picking is exercised by local academia in choosing what global practices apply to their needs and therefore include which ones do not. The need to juxtapose international scholarship with local needs is widely acknowledged, however, few studies have focused on how available local knowledge can be adapted to the incoming global standards. Haruna and Vyas-Doorgapersad (2014) address this gap. They aim to establish the need for a structured mix of concepts and experience within the curriculum in schools so as to include local knowledge into the global public administration practices being taught in academic curriculums. They also advocate for an inclusion of traditional and non-traditional skills, as well as classroom instruction with community experience. In this sense, they agree with findings in another region, like the Ye, Sun, and Wu (2009) study in the Asia section of this review which found that active community experiences reinforced the teachings for easier cultural adaptation than exclusively classroom based teaching. An unexpected finding in the literature was that interdisciplinary challenges were more relevant than the other cultural adaptation or local challenges (Subban & Vyas-Doorgapersad, 2014). An analysis of South African public Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

4

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

service found that the training of public servants lack a harmony between multiple disciplinary approaches. There was especially a deep divide between what was being taught in the classroom and the real needs of the population. Much of what is being taught did not help bridge the gap between academic training and practice and so the paper concludes by calling for more attempts to make public servants effective at their work as opposed to just being effective students. 2.2. Public affairs education in the Middle East Exploring how public affairs education is adapted in diverse local contexts not only raises questions on how relevant the knowledge can be to local public service, but also how faithful it can be to the original version of the standards those local translations can or should be. Within the Turkish context, Yildiz, Demirciog˘lu, and Babaog˘lu (2011) document resistance to attempts to introduce public administration education into the local curriculum based on a perception that it represented an attempt to force a fit that did not match. This research found that multiple opportunities were available to implement thorough adaptations of state – of-the-art techniques coming from pioneer countries in Public Affairs and yet were never fully embraced in Turkey. A mere translation of texts was found to have happened without further analysis and without analogous original publications of new local material. For this perspective, a complete public affairs program would include original production of local knowledge that complements international materials and this is not happening in the case of Turkey (Yildiz et al., 2011). Generally, this critique is about Turkey having only translated or reviewed foreign texts without much care for the local challenges in public administration, leaving the students unprepared to fully engage the challenges that await them in the public sector. From another angle, and as part of the Turkish case, Onder and Brower (2013) bring the cultural compatibility issue to the fore more than the local research component. They point out that Turkish culture is heavily hierarchical with strict obedience to authority figures, and that this in turn ends up diluting the strength of good governance practices. The authors suggest that this may have also been a conscious governmental and societal choice by Turkey to keep following the authority based decision model similar to China’s. Additionally, these findings point to this model as likely to start facing multiple pressures from the public administration side because of the inefficiencies that come in such a hierarchical status operation. They posit that it may have been a good way for initial development, but in regards to longer-term development will have to include a more meritocratic public service based on good governance rather than elitist attitudes and hierarchical structures. This situation can be probably found in many of the Latin American contexts where hierarchic social norms can sometimes hinder working dynamics across all sectors, especially the public sector. 2.3. Public affairs education in Asia A unique route in analyzing local vs. international knowledge was taken by Ye et al. (2009) who did not start exclusively from the basis of bringing the best state of the art to public affairs education, but rather teaching the local context at home and sending students abroad to learn the state of the art. In a sense, one approach in China has been to bring back international practices on their own terms focusing on modeling after international (largely American) public affairs practices more so than public affairs education. Exchange students set out to modernize China’s civil service by acquiring training in U.S. universities and local government institutions. The peculiar aspect of this study was in putting students through a crash course in global practices abroad while keeping all the local knowledge and challenges foremost in the curriculum at home. The study found that the main factors in creating a successful program for learning public affairs abroad was to have an interdisciplinary approach, a strong support for finding internships for the students that went abroad, and making sure that they were active in the communities hosting their studies. In this way, the findings in China replicate those of Subban and Vyas-Doorgapersad (2014) who also found in South Africa a strong link to interdisciplinary coherence when attempting applicability of global knowledge at the local level. A similar enterprise was undertaken by Neuby (2012) who attempted to dissect the elements that made a study abroad program to learn state of the art practices successful. Neuby found that some of the biggest facilitators of success were culture shock softening practices like smoothing relationships among professors by being culturally sensitive by properly learning the names of students. Additionally, Neuby found that students benefit from being able to learn in their customary Chinese social norms within the U.S. university campuses. Notably, this research focused Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

5

on short-term study abroad programs in the United States and did not address Chinese public affairs education itself. The focus was not on reforming Chinese public affairs education so much as allowing Chinese students to learn as many good governance practices from practitioners in order to bring them back to the Chinese civil service. 2.4. Public affairs education in Latin America Latin America has a much smaller footprint in the literature on public affairs education and this serves as an impetus for our current work. In the introduction to a symposium issue of JPAE, Rubaii and Pliscoff (2013) present a summary of the work in a symposium where cooperative teams from three Latin American countries and the United States explored Latin American Public Affairs education idiosyncrasies with a local perspective as well as that seen from the United States. In that symposium, Appe and Barraga´n (2013) noted the absence of curriculum focused on the nonprofit sector within universities in Ecuador. Benavides, Fierro-Villa, and Cobia´n Aguayo (2013) examined the extent to which public affairs curriculum in Mexico explicitly included attention to reduction of corruption. Bayma Oliveira and Rubin (2013) traced the evolution of public administration in Brazil noting evidence of both drawing upon and distinguishing from the United States model. Further exploration of the Latin American experience with curriculum design is hence a warranted and needed contribution to his field. This research seeks to build on that base and to do so on a regional level rather than a series of case studies. 3. A comparative overview of graduate public affairs education in Latin America Our methodology involves original data collection analyzed in relation to two existing data bases. We use extensive data gathered from a survey of nearly 50 programs of public affairs in Latin America, which we administered in 2015 in order to identify patterns and trends in public affairs (PA) education in the region. Then, we compare our data with two data bases: (1) the Atlas of Public Policy and Management (Carleton University and the University of Toronto), which provides an international profile of programs, and (2) NASPAA’s Data Center, which summarizes the characteristics of NASPAA-member programs based on Annual Survey data. Our approach allows us to make direct comparisons on an aggregate level between graduate public affairs programs in Latin American and those in the United States and, in a few instances, Europe. As part of this study we administered an online survey to a number of Latin American programs of public affairs. An essential design component of the survey questionnaire was the inclusion of the same questions that comprise the NASPAA Annual Survey to allow for comparisons. We then added questions to probe about the extent to which programs already have or seek to obtain some form of accreditation as well as a series of more questions detailed questions about the coverage of analytical topics and skills, the coverage of soft skills, and the use of various pedagogical strategies within their educational programs. The subsequent analysis, tables and figures uses two sources of data. The first source is the averages from the responses of several questions of interest from the NASPAA Annual Survey that represents the US programs. The second source is the extension of this survey applied across several programs in the LAC region in order to compare the questions of interest. The goal of the survey was to collect appropriate data to investigate some trends of higher education in the field of public administration in Latin America in order to identify similarities or differences between MPA and MPP programs in the Latin America region and in the U.S. The trends to analyze are: (1) the patterns in courses, methodologies, and approaches; (2) a typology of MPA/MPP programs in the Latin America region; and (3) level of similarity or differentiation between Latin America programs and U.S. programs. The starting point for identification of public affairs programs was the list of 52 members of the Red Interamericana de Educacio´n en Administracio´n Pu´blica or Inter-American Network of Public Administration Education (INPAE, for its initials in English). INPAE was founded in 2003, with the assistance of NASPAA, with the goals of advancing the coverage and quality of public affairs education in the Americas, and promoting both north-south and south-south alliances among its members. We added to the INPAE list another 223 programs identified through a search of websites for a total of 275 programs related to public administration education in the region. Table 2 presents an overview of the distribution of PA programs across countries and type of program. Because of plan to use questions from the NASPAA survey and to include INPAE members in the study, we first obtained the endorsement and approval of leadership at both NASPAA and INPAE. Later, an invitation was sent to deans of PA schools and directly responsible of each of these programs from the directory. The surveys were made Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

6

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

available in three languages, Spanish, Portuguese and English, and were disseminated to all programs using an online survey tool (Survey Monkey). The period of response was three months during May–July, 2015. The authors sent follow-up email reminders every two weeks. 44 programs responded: 42 graduate and 2 doctoral programs across 6 countries in Latin America: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. The response rate was 17.5% in general and 15.3% only for master programs. However, there are sections of the survey that reported lower rates of response (in particular the last sections of the survey dealing with curriculum). Annex 1 also describes the number of programs invited for the survey and the response rate by country and type of program from the NASPAA extension applied in the LAC region and the summery of programs in the US from the NASPAA Annual Survey. The low response rate represents some similar challenges, which NASPAA faced in its initial years collecting data from members, namely the lack of easy access to institutional data for answering survey questions, a burdensome process for respondents, and some concern about sharing data with competitors. Our survey faced additional challenges related to a lack of culture of collecting and reporting data in the region and the absence of pressure to report in conjunction with maintaining NASPAA accreditation. Despite these challenges, our response rate is considered normal for research via electronic or online (Bryman, 2004). Additionally, our respondents include programs from the seven Latin American countries with the largest populations (Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Peru, and Chile) and thus are in some ways representative of the quantity of programs in the region (Table 1). We acknowledge the challenges of conducting this research on a regional rather than a country-by-country basis given the potential for differences across countries in terms of their approach. Two considerations guide our decision. First, the number of graduate public affairs programs in each country in the region is quite limited, making quantitative analysis impractical. When combined with the low level of response, the results cannot be confidently generalized to the region and our ability to generalize would be further compromised at a country level (see Table 2 for a country-by-country breakdown of responses relative to total number of programs). Second, we consider it essential to gather and analyze baseline data in which to frame further country-specific case studies of this phenomenon. A total of 52 questions were included in the survey. The first group of 11 questions requested general information about the program (name of program, department and institution, beginning year, type of accreditation, country, name and position of respondent). The second group included 37 questions about number of faculty, type of faculty, enrollment (national or international), financial support, type of financial support, type of academic calendar, quantity and types of courses available, time period for program completion, requirements for completion, concentrations or specializations, campus, admission requirements, candidates, graduates source of employment, and type of competencies. It is this second group of questions that directly corresponds to the questions in the NASPAA Survey. The third and final group of questions probed for information about curriculum content and the extent to which various types of knowledge or skills were required or optional elements of the program. Excluding general information of programs and personal data from respondents, Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of critical questions that form the basis of analysis for the study. 3.1. A profile of public affairs education in Latin America and the U.S. As a baseline for comparison with public affairs education in the United States we rely on Annual Program Survey Results collected by NASPAA and made available publically on their website (www.naspaa.org). At the time of writing this paper, the most recent data publically reported by NASPAA is from the 2012–2013 academic year. As we mentioned earlier, graduate level public affairs education in Latin America is a much newer phenomenon than in the United States. The latter began to be established in the 1940s and 1950s, whereas the majority of the Latin American programs in our sample have programs that were created since 2000. Contrasts between public affairs education in the United States and Latin America begin at the most basic level, with degree titles. In the United States, the most common degree title is the Master of Public Administration (35%), followed by the Master of Public Policy (25%), and the Master of Public Affairs (24%) and a variety of more individualized names. We note that in Latin America, there is much more variety in degree titles, with frequent references to combinations of public policy, public management, development, administration, political science, government or governance, although our data does not provide us with a basis for assessing why. Fig. 1 illustrates this diversity by categorizing the degrees according to their disciplinary basic and range of content. Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

7

Table 1 Descriptive statistics from select survey questions. No.

Question

n

Type of data

Number of response

Average

Min.

Max.

s.d.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Total number of faculty members Total number of full-time faculty Total number of part-time faculty Total number of courses in the program Percent of courses offered by full-time faculty Percent of full-time faculty with completed PhD Annual academic calendar Summer, fall, spring Fall, spring, summer Spring, summer, fall Fall, winter, spring Monthly from January to December Quarterly Monthly from March to December Courses available at night and/or weekends We have classes in the evenings but not on the weekends We have classes both in the evenings and on the weekends We do not have classes in the evening or on weekends We have classes on the weekends but not in the evenings Time completion of the program for a full-time student 12 months 18 months 20 months 24 months 30 months 36 months 42 months 60 months n.a. Modality of education In-person instruction only In-person instruction with some online coursework available Primarily online (students have to come to campus at least once) 26 Completely online (students never have to come to campus)

27 27 27 17 22 27

Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Percent Percent

27 27 27 17 22 27

19.0 6.9 12.1 12.6 41.9 49.7

4 0 0 0 0 0

85 28 68 36 100 100

19.8 6.8 16.2 10.5 33.2 39.2

24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous

2 5 5 5 1 1 5

0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.21

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

28.2 41.5 41.5 41.5 20.4 20.4 41.5

23 23 23 23

Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous

5 10 5 3

0.22 0.44 0.22 0.13

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

42.2 50.7 42.2 34.4

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous

2 5 2 5 4 3 1 1 1

0.08 0.21 0.08 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

28.2 41.5 28.2 41.5 38.1 33.8 20.4 20.4 20.4

26 26 26

Dichotomous Dichotomous Dichotomous

20 3 1

0.77 0.12 0.08

0 0 0

1 1 1

43.0 32.6 19.6

26

Dichotomous

2

0.08

0

1

27.2

8

9

10

Source: Based on survey administered by the authors. Although 48 programs responded the survey, only ‘‘n’’ programs responded each question. Answers in questions 1–4 are numerical. Answers in questions 5–6 are percentages from question 4. Answers in questions 7–10 are multiple choice, so addition of categories may exceed 100%.

Not surprisingly, the scope and nature of accreditation of public affairs programs in Latin America is distinct from the model used in the United States. Whereas roughly half (49%) of all programs reported having accreditation, of those with accreditation 86% were accredited by national governmental accreditors and only three reported some form of international accreditation. This is not surprising given the relative recent availability of international accreditation in the discipline. More than three-quarters of programs (77%) without accreditation report having interest in pursuing international accreditation in the future, suggesting a willingness to assess their programs within international, most likely U.S.-based, standards. The most common reasons given for this interest include a recognition that international accreditation represents a symbol of high quality for the program and institution (reported by 59% of respondents), provides for harmonization with other high quality international programs (48%), provides access to international networks (46%), increases opportunities for international research collaborations (41%) and facilitates international faculty and student exchanges (36%). One area of clear distinction between the U.S. and Latin American programs is in the realm of faculty qualifications, with an average of only 46% of faculty in the Latin American programs having a PhD and roughly onethird (35%) holding full-time appointments. Interestingly, among those with doctoral degrees, a small proportion Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

8

Table 2 Survey response by country and type of program. Country

Programs

Responses Masters

Doctoral

Total

Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Ecuador Guatemala Jamaica Me´xico Panama´ Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Dominican Republic Surinam Uruguay Venezuela

45 2 10 25 32 1 1 6 5 3 120 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 5

11

11

4 12 1

4 12 1

1

15

Total

268

42

12

3

3

2

44

(22%) earned their degrees in the United States. They are more likely to have graduated with doctorates from their home country (51%) or from a European university (46%). The efforts in different countries to build stronger faculty bodies with more international PhD degrees, but also to enhance their very own supply of graduate education, opens several avenues for potential collaborative efforts between public affairs schools in North America and those in Latin America. The manner in which programs are offered also differs, with U.S. programs more likely to offer instruction primarily in-person with some online coursework available (60%), and programs in Latin America predominantly in the form of in-person instruction only (78%). The majority of U.S. programs (64%) enroll both full-time and part-time students, with only 3% reporting that they serve exclusively part-time students. In Latin America, the modal response [(Fig._1)TD$IG]was for part-time students only (39%) followed by generally part-time with some full-time students (27%).

Fig. 1. Disciplinary base of public affairs programs in Latin America (n = 42). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

9

Fig. 2. Average percent of enrollment by category of student. Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors (Latin American countries, n = 19) and data reported by NASPAA from the 2012–2013 Annual Reports (United States, n = 215).

Yet, considering that online education is a growing trend in Latin America, this could also affect programs in public affairs. The survey results indicate that several countries have most of their programs located in their main cities (see data about students from other parts of the country in Fig. 2). Thus, considering that decentralization is very strong in the agenda of most Latin American governments, accompanied by greater demands for subnational institutional capacity and autonomy and better technologies available, it can be expected that a higher number of universities will start offering online programs of public affairs education in the next decade (see Fig. 3). The results indicate that there is a slightly different pattern of attraction of students to public affairs graduate programs in Latin America. In terms of enrollment by category of student (Fig. 2), public affairs programs in the region appear to attract slightly more women and considerably more international, and part-time students but fewer students from ethnic minorities relative to their U.S. counterparts. One interesting result here is that Latin American programs aim to reach a greater proportion of part-time students than their U.S. counterparts do. This is confirmed when we asked what is the type of student that the program targets (Fig. 4), which indicates that at least 55% of the programs [(Fig._3)TD$IG]

Fig. 3. Degree modality, percent of programs offering degree in this format. Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors (Latin American countries, n = 27) and data reported by NASPAA based on 2012–2013 Annual Reports (n = 220). Totals may exceed 100% because some programs are available in several formats.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._4)TD$IG] 10

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Type of student targeted by public affairs programs in Latin America (n = 26). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

target primarily part-time students. According to these results, public affairs education is oriented toward people who combine educational activities with work duties. Specializations are another area of stark contrast, reflecting a very different pattern of public affairs education in both regions, as it can be seen in Fig. 5. Whereas in the United States, the most common specialization is in nonprofit management (58% of programs), among our Latin American sample none reported this offering. This is consistent with the Appe and Barraga´n (2013) findings from Ecuador. At the other end of the spectrum, while only 13% of U.S. programs offer a specialization focused on the state level of government, fully 42% of respondents in the Latin American sample provide that option for their students. Fig. 5 illustrates the relative availability of specializations by percentage and the top most common specializations in each context. The data show that the topics are significantly different and somehow reflect the more recent development of public affairs graduate programs in Latin America, which appear to be less specialized than programs from the U.S. In terms of placement (see Fig. 6), it is clear that government jobs, especially those at subnational levels, are the most frequent destination of graduates in the Latin American programs of public administration/policy. This result that is interesting considering the high level of centralization of the programs in national capitals. On the other hand,

[(Fig._5)TD$IG]

Fig. 5. Public affairs program specializations in the U.S. and Latin America. Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors (Latin American countries, n = 26) and data reported by NASPAA based on the 2012–2013 Annual Report (United States, n = 196).

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._6)TD$IG]

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

11

Fig. 6. Public affairs graduates’ job placement in Latin America (n = 16). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

Latin America public affairs program graduates are less likely to have jobs in the nonprofit or for-profit private sector, which is consistent with previous findings by Sanabria (2012) regarding job sector choices in Colombia. This is also a finding that is in keeping with the absence of emphasis on the nonprofit sector within the curriculum (as shown in Fig. 5) of public affairs programs in the region. 3.2. Regional comparisons of public affairs program content In the second part of our comparative analysis, we examine the core courses reported by the graduate programs surveyed in relation to data from The Atlas of Public Policy and Management (hereafter referred to simply as The Atlas) which has been developed and maintained by the Carleton University and the University of Toronto. This database contains information from several programs in different continents which allow us for a more in depth analysis, including data from Europe. We asked programs in Latin America to report core courses in areas regarding methods, policy analysis, substantive policy and managerial tools, among others. We provided an ample array of options to report core courses in different areas and allowed them to report other unlisted categories. Then, we aggregated all those statistics into four encompassing subject areas (domains) of instruction (see Table 3) in public affairs, defined by The Atlas: (1) tools and skills, (2) institutions and context, (3) management functions, and (4) policy sectors. This exercise allows us to visualize the distribution of core courses in programs in public affairs in Latin America. Based on that structure, we then used information from the Atlas Project regarding the distribution of instruction by subjects in U.S. and European programs. We calculated the average percentages for the programs listed for each region, in order to have a benchmark to analyze whether public affairs programs in Latin America exhibit a different distribution of instructional subjects. Although the information reported in the Atlas project, just like our information, does not cover all existent programs in the U.S. and Europe, it is a complete source of information regarding iconic MPA and MPP programs. In this way, Fig. 7 shows that most programs in Latin America are heavily oriented toward policy analysis, managerial tools and quantitative analysis tools. It is illustrative that almost all surveyed programs reporting courses in those areas. Then, at an intermediate level are different courses dealing with substantive and sectoral policies such as social, urban and fiscal policy, health and information technologies. Less frequent are courses on decision-making models and mathematics in programs in public administration/policy in the region. However, how does this compare to other programs abroad? Do the data reveal a similar pattern to programs in the U.S. and Europe? The Atlas Project allows us to have information regarding the average distribution of instruction subjects in a sample of programs in the U.S. and Europe. Although the information itself, and the way they collected it, are slightly different from our data, it is useful to compare general trends among regions and to give us an idea whether there is convergence or not between programs in Latin America, and other regions of the world. Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

12

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Domains and subjects from the Atlas of Public Policy and Management. Analysis and skills

Institutions and context

Management functions

Policy sectors

Policy and management analysis

Democratic institutions and policy process

Public financial management

Macroeconomic policy

Ethics, rights and accountability

Evaluation and performance measurement

International development

Economic analysis

Public finance and social policy Human resource management

Quantitative methods Analytic methods

Socioeconomic and political context

Leadership skills

Global context

Health Information and technology management

Education

Regulatory policy and management

Employment, labor and immigration

Local government management

Cities, urban and regional development

Nonprofit management and advocacy

Environment and sustainability

Communication skills

Agriculture and resources Science, technology and innovation Industry, trade and investment Energy, transport and infrastructure Defence, security and foreign relations Policing and justice administration Arts and culture Financial markets

[(Fig._7)TD$IG]

Fig. 7. Core courses by subject (12 < n < 18). Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

[(Fig._8)TD$IG]

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

13

Fig. 8. Distribution of program content by atlas project areas. Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors (Latin America) and information from The Atlas of Public Policy and Management (United States and Europe).

The comparison reveals that Latin American public affairs programs purport a different distribution by subjects than programs in the U.S. and Europe (see Fig. 8). It appears that programs in this region tend to be less focused on Analysis and Skills than the U.S. and European programs and more managerial oriented than both of them. In terms of policy sectors there are not significant differences among the three regions. One interesting point is that both European and Latin programs share a greater proportion of courses in Institutions and Context (i.e. courses about policy process and analysis) than programs in the U.S. reflecting perhaps greater influence from European models on Latin America’s model of instruction in public affairs. However, programs in Latin America notably surpass their European counterparts in the proportion of courses regarding management tools. To sum up, the analyzed data reveals that there is no sufficient evidence to argue that there is a process of emulation of graduate programs in public affairs in Latin America. The survey results indicate that public affairs programs are less familiar with accreditation process, especially at the international level. They are also more inclined to provide inperson instruction only and to attract more part-time students and women. In terms of faculty qualification, the levels of PhD graduates are well below the levels exhibited by public affairs programs in the United States and Europe. In fact, the last indicator might be a potential explanatory variable as to why there is not much similarity with U.S. programs in terms of contents and approaches. A direct comparison of the contents and topics of specializations also shows a stark contrast in programs in Latin America, which tend to exhibit a lower array of specialization subjects than programs in public administration and policy in the United States. The data reveals that programs in this region even lack some topics that are usually strong in the curricula of U.S. programs such as nonprofit, homeland/defense among others. Finally, a comparison of instructional subjects in core courses reveals that programs in Latin America appear to be much more oriented toward policy process and policy analysis topics, as well as more inclined to teach management courses than programs in both Europe and the United States. 4. Discussion and final remarks There are obvious differences between public affairs education in Latin America and the United States. Our results, which we acknowledge represent only a portion of the array of public affairs programs in the region, indicate that there is no evidence of widespread emulation of a U.S.-model in public affairs education in Latin America. The high level of diversity in terms of modes of operation, curricula contents, topics of specialization and methodological approaches, certainly differ from the much more homogeneous U.S. model of MPA/MPP instruction. While we have less basis for comparison with European programs, the results suggest that Latin America is not copying them either. The Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

14

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

isomorphism evident in many policies and in the tools and techniques of policy analysis do not seem to extend to public affairs education. The student body composition suggests similarities and differences. As in the United States, Latin American public affairs programs are attracting women to the profession; in contrast the Latin American context includes more students who combine work with graduate education. Within the realm of public affairs practice, it is well documented that inter-sectoral collaboration is required to address complex social problems. Public affairs education in the United States has responded to this pressure and expanded the scope of the curriculum to reflect that broader emphasis. There is no evidence of similar changes in Latin America. Rather a clear focus on government remains. The pressures – some from the United States and international organizations – for decentralization in Latin America also seems to be reflected in clear distinctions in program emphases. Latin American programs are more likely to offer specializations in local, municipal or territorial government than their counterparts in the United States. To some extent, the curriculum of Latin American public affairs programs reflect a continued emphasis on government and preparing students from work in the public sector in contrast to the U.S. context in which there has been a notable and explicit shift to governance and preparing students for work in public service. There can be manifold explanations for the observed differences; without attempting to be exhaustive we will discuss some of them. The first explanation might come from the places (countries) where faculty members have received their own instruction. As we saw from the faculty data, there is more influence from European-educated faculty than that from the U.S. and even more, there are a solid number of people who were trained either in other Latin American countries or at home. Second, as a stark difference from U.S. programs, there are still a relatively low number of professors with doctoral degrees in the region, which is in turn linked to a very low number of national doctoral programs and low levels of domestic research in public administration and policy. Thus, it is unlikely that most professors are connected to international networks of scholars that allow for the transfer of educational practices and methods from other countries. Third, language seems still to be a barrier. This is highly evident in the language of instruction and the materials used in courses. Fig. 9 shows that most of the programs have their own language as the unique or main language for materials and readings, while only 4 out of ten reporting that they use several materials in a foreign language, this despite the fact that ‘‘top schools’’ in each country are generally included among the respondents. Interestingly, among those who reported the use of materials in other language, English was the most common language for instruction materials. The results also show that English is not a frequent language of instruction in public affairs programs in Latin America (see Fig. 10). According to Fig. 10, only 11% of the surveyed institutions reported having some courses in English as part of their programs. Moreover, no single program reported to have English as the sole language of instruction, or at least as the main language of instruction combined with a few courses in another language. This is indicative probably, not only of the strength of Spanish as the primary language in PA education in the region because of government regulations, but perhaps also of the low numbers of faculty members educated in English-speaking

[(Fig._9)TD$IG]

Fig. 9. Language of course material (n = 27). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._10)TD$IG]

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

15

Fig. 10. Language of instruction (n = 27). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

institutions abroad, and the traditionally low level of bilingualism in Latin America. In all fairness, however, we must acknowledge that any level of bilingualism in instruction within Latin American public affairs education is more than what occurs in US-based public affairs education. We do not have data from programs in the United States to compare with the data we collected because NASPAA does not even ask about language. Thus, we can interpret our findings regarding language as reflecting both emulation and unique identity. It reflects the latter (unique identity) in that it relies on documents in the native language of the country rather than in English. At the same time, it reflects emulation of the United States model in that the native language predominates (albeit a different native language) to the exclusion of a broader array of source materials from multiple countries and in multiple languages. English may be the dominant language of published research in the field, but it is not the only language. A fourth explanation can be the strong link in Latin America between administrative law and public administration, emerging from the heavy influence of the French model on the design and functioning of public administration institutions. The influence of the French model is also evident in initial training programs in public administration in some countries in the region, which aimed to emulate the ENA1 model (Careaga, Sanabria, & Caballero, 2014). Such approach to public administration highly connected to law has infused also the kind of programs and the contents they offer. In fact, the review of the contents of the programs indicates a lower presence of courses in quantitative methods and economics, a frequent trait of programs in North America. In fact, the results indicate a more frequent presence of narrative and qualitative approaches to policy analysis, traditional of graduate education in PA in some European countries. Thus, according to these results, there is no evidence to argue strong influence or direct emulation of the U.S. model on PA education in Latin America. Additionally, some of the differences may be attributable to natural evolutions that occur over time. While we have chosen to compare programs at the same point in time, an alternative methodology would examine programs at similar points in time in their development. According to this school of thought, because many U.S.-based programs in this field have existed so much longer than their Latin American counterparts, it might have been more appropriate to examine programs in Latin America today with those in the United States several decades ago. Rather than adopt that approach, we suggest instead that scholars continued to study of the programs in Latin America as they develop over time to observe whether they follow patterns similar to those in the United States. Having said that, it would be possible to perceive that there are some indications of a potential convergence in the future. As it is portrayed in Fig. 11, faculty exchange programs between Latin American and US institutions show a

1

France’s E´cole Nationale d’Administration (ENA).

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

[(Fig._1)TD$IG] 16

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 11. Faculty and student international exchange programs (n = 16). [(Fig._12)TD$IG]Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

Fig. 12. International curriculum support and advice in Latin American public affairs programs (n = 18). Source: Based on survey data collected by the authors.

particular strength, coming second after exchange programs with other Latin American institutions. This is not surprising considering the growing role that networks such as INPAE, NASPAA, PMRA and IRSPM2 have started playing in the region. However, other indicators of academic interaction show that there is still room for growth since student exchanges with U.S. institutions are still low compared to European institutions, something that might be explained by the presence of demanding visa requisites for Latin American students in the U.S. A different situation is portrayed when analyzing the results regarding the sources of support and advice for Latin American programs of public affairs (see Fig. 12). The results show high dynamism in the relationship between Latin America institutions and other institutions in their own country, in Latin American countries and in Europe. Only one in ten institutions reported having received advice and support from institutions in the United States. This might

2

NASPAA is the Network of Schools in Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration, PMRA stands for the Public Management Research Association and IRSPM is the acronym of the International Research Society for Public Management.

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004

+ Models

POLSOC-255; No. of Pages 17

P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido et al. / Policy and Society xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

17

confirm that there are still very few channels for the transfer of practices, contents and approaches from U.S. institutions to Latin American programs in public affairs. With our current data sources, we are unable to ascertain whether the observed differences represent a deliberate design to meet a different set of societal needs, local contexts, and student demands, or if they reflect simply being at an earlier stage of development in Latin American programs of public affairs. Considering that, it will be interesting to observe in future research if public affairs education in Latin America stays focused on its own government issues or instead moves toward emulating further the model of graduate education in the United States. The logical next steps for this research are to explore how research and doctoral education affect the development and contents of programs in Latin America, and to gauge the level of regional variation via cross-country comparisons within the region. References Appe, S. A., & Barraga´n, D. (2013). Strategies outside the normal classroom: Nonprofit management education in transparency and accountability. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 591–614. Atlas of Public Policy and Management. Available at: http://portal.publicpolicy.utoronto.ca. Accessed: From July to September 2015. Bayma Oliveira, F., & Rubin, M. M. (2013). Public administration education in Brazil: Evolution, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 635–656. Benavides, A. D., Fierro-Villa, A. M., & Cobia´n Aguayo, E. (2013). Public service and good governance vs. corruption and self-promotion: MPA programs in Mexico. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 615–634. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. Careaga, M., Sanabria, P., & Caballero, C. (2014). Servidores Pu´blicos ma´s profesionales e ´ıntegros vı´a educacio´n ma´s profesional? In C. Pliscoff (Ed.), Ensen˜anza y Aprendizaje de Administracio´n y Polı´ticas Pu´blicas en la Ame´ricas (pp. 149–180). Santiago de Chile: RIL Editores. Dabe`ne, O. (2009). The politics of regional integration in Latin America: Theoretical and comparative explorations. Palgrave Macmillan US: The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307. Ewoh, A. I. (2014). Public administration education and training in Nigeria: Problems, challenges, and prospects. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 455. Geva-May, I., & Maslove, A. (2006). Canadian public policy analysis and public policy programs: A comparative perspective. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(4), 413–438. Geva-May, I., Nasi, G., Turrini, A., & Scott, C. (2008). MPP programs emerging around the world. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 187–204. Haruna, P. F., & Kannae, L. A. (2013). Connecting good governance principles to the public affairs curriculum: The case of Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 493–514. Haruna, P. F., & Vyas-Doorgapersad, S. (2014). Building public service capacity for development management: Reflections on a professional public administration and training in African nations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(4), 451–454. Jarvis, D. S. L. (2014). Policy transfer, neo-liberalism or coercive institutional isomorphism? Explaining the emergence of a regulatory regime for quality assurance in the Hong Kong higher education sector. Policy and Society, 33(3), 237–252. Neuby, B. L. (2012). Chinese student success in an applied academic environment. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 683–693. Onder, M., & Brower, R. S. (2013). Public administration theory, research, and teaching: How does Turkish public administration differ? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 117–139. Rubaii, N. (2016). Bringing the 21st-century governance paradigm to public affairs education: Reimagining how we teach what we teach. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(4), 467–482. Rubaii, N., & Lima Bandeira, M. (2016). Comparative analysis of higher education quality assurance in Colombia and Ecuador: How is political ideology reflected in policy design and discourse? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Theory http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13876988.2016.1199103. Rubaii, N. M., & Pliscoff, C. (2013). Public administration education in Latin America—Understanding teaching in context: An introduction to the symposium. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(4), 585. Sanabria, P. (2012). Job sector choice and public service motivation: Evidence from Colombia. (Ph.D. Dissertation) Washington, DC: Department of Public Administration and Policy. The American University. 2012, August. Stone, D. (2001). Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas. CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01. The University of Warwick, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. Subban, M., & Vyas-Doorgapersad, S. (2014). Public administration training and development in Africa: The case of the Republic of South Africa. Journal of Public Affairs Education – JPAE, 20(4), 499. Ye, L., Sun, J., & Wu, X. (2009). Toward successful overseas training for Chinese public officials. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 203–218. Yildiz, M., Demirciog˘lu, M. A., & Babaog˘lu, C. (2011). Teaching public policy to undergraduate students: Issues, experiences, and lessons in Turkey. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(3), 343–365. ?

Please cite this article in press as: P. Sanabria[2_TD$IF]-Pulido, et al., Public affairs graduate education in Latin America: Emulation or identity?, Policy and Society (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2016.11.004