Is Latin America’s inequality based on their lack of investment in education?
While inequality seems to be inevitable across the globe, Latin America seems to be the most unequal. Although there are several factors that contribute to Latin America’s high inequality rate, Fukuyama argues that one of the reasons why Latin America has stagnated is because they struggle to compete in an increasing multinational market. Asia, one of Latin America’s multinational competitors, is thriving due to their investment in education while Latin America struggles to keep up due to their lack of investment in education.
I’m curious to find out why East Asia was able to successfully invest in higher education while Latin America was not. Could it be due to the process of colonization and the extraction of their natural resources that Latin America simply did not have the money to invest in education? Or is it because their level of education is not adequate to that of the developed world?
Throughout Latin America, the poor and indigenous communities are the majority yet they are excluded from the region’s political agenda. Fukuyama argues that exclusion is not the problem, rather it is “the syndrome of political decay” (71). Political decay refers to the high demand that is placed on Latin America’s weak public institutions who are not able to handle it. I argue that exclusion makes more sense than political decay because high inequality emerges from the poor not having equal access to education in comparison to their elite counterparts. I also think that instituting an equal education system throughout the Americas will resolve inequality throughout the region but this will have to start with the incorporation of the lower classes into the political system because they are the ones who are the most susceptible to the effects of a poor education.
I believe that Latin America has a comprehensive education issue, rather than just a higher education issue. Based on my understanding of East Asian education (I was once a part of a group which analyzed the education systems of various countries), everything is quite regimented and is regulated to the tee. There are levels of testing that are extremely rigorous and far more candid in separating students based on score and intelligence than most other education systems. There may be a certain cultural difference in views of school systems ranging from emphasis on the individual to the position of teachers in society as reflected not only in student demeanor, but also pay grade.
In response to your argument that exclusion is to blame for Latin America’s educational woes, I think that you are absolutely correct. Access to education -a quality education- is extremely important in all parts of the world, whether based on individual merit or other criteria. Schools need to give students every opportunity to succeed at every level and in competition with peers. However, I do not think that a, “equal education system throughout the Americas”is possible. Even if you are referring to just Latin America, that covers a wide expanse of land and regimes. There are too many factors in play to have one system for all of Latin America. It might be possible to establish a global standard of excellence, however there would still be education and socioeconomic inequity. Unfortunately, I don’t think that total equality is possible. There will always be ways for certain people to get ahead and there will always be room for others to fail. The nature of the world is flawed inequity.
In response to this blog and the previous comment — I tend to agree more with Mackenzie’s comment. Fukuyama did state that the situation in East Asia is probably not replicable due to differing conditions in any other part of the world. Instead, Latin America needs to form it’s own policies which can include, but should not be limited to, CCTs. These can be used as a starting point, but can may only encourage excellent attendance at sub-par schools. There does need to be some kind of education reformation, it is just unsure of how this would look. In addition, Fukuyama also states that any free society will have to have some degree of income disparity, so complete income equality is essentially impossible. The goal should not be this utopia of sorts, but the smallest income disparity possible across the board.
I understand that my comment about instituting an equal education system throughout the Americas was a bit misleading due to the complexity of the region. What I meant is more along the lines of what Leah mentioned, which is that Latin America should form more education reform policies based on each individual country. While CCTs are a good starting point, the countries in Latin America should implement other successful policies that will help narrow the overall income gap based on each country’s economic situation. I think that once high income inequality is tackled, we will slowly start to see education reform. And as we learned in class, inequality has been decreasing throughout the Americas so it will be interesting to see how this will affect the continent’s education systems.
Education is Latin America is a very under invested and overlooked right. While i think you make some strong points in your post. However, from first hand experience, education in latin america, especially Mexico is super unequal. Public schools in Mexico City compared to public schools in San Cristobal de las Casas (poor community) is vastly different, which is why people in poor communities would rather just work at a young age and get technical jobs like plumbers, electricinas, construction workers or maids. CCT’s is a great program, but it is not the overall solution to solving the educational problem countries in Latin America. Private Schools in Mexico (some of them) rival private schools in other countries around the world, but public schools are one of the worst ones globally. Education should be a priority in all countries as without education countries cannot prosper.