CHAPTER I

THE COURSE OF HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT THOUGHT
IN LATIN AMERICAN EDUCATION

Chapter One will review the theory-building efforts concerning public administration and educational management over a span of five centuries of Latin American history. It will trace the initial management developments of the colonial era and will then examine the course taken by scholars and practitioners of public administration and educational management in this century, in light of the national and international changes in the economic, political, and cultural environment which set the stage for the formal study of applied social sciences in Latin America.

As this study unfolds, it traces the most significant periods, and their respective analytical approaches, in the evolution of Latin American educational management thought from its early beginnings up to the threshold of the third millennium. The methodology is analytical, and its approach, interdisciplinary. Such a methodological orientation facilitates the examination of Latin American management thought in the context of its cultural traditions and of its history of international interdependence.

The purpose of this historical review of educational management thought in Latin America is to provide elements for a more coherent and comprehensive picture of current theoretical and praxeological developments. Efforts to face future management challenges should also benefit from the lessons of the past. After all, history —and Latin American educational history as well— has not ended. In this perspective, university scholars and school practitioners are writing today and will go on writing tomorrow the continuing story of educational management theory-building in Latin America.

The Search for Knowledge in Public Administration
and Educational Management

The search for scientific and technological knowledge in public administration and educational management is a constant feature in the history of political and social institutions of Latin America. This feature is evident in the historical attempts to import foreign models as well as in the efforts to create national solutions.

The powerful external influence in Latin American public administration and educational management is especially evident in the juridical tradition, which characterized the colonial period, and in the positivistic orientation, which dominated the development of social sciences from the time of the Industrial Revolution to the end of the postwar economic reconstruction in this century. During this period, Latin American nations adopted administrative practices conceived in other cultural environments and based on economic interests and political aims frequently different from those of Latin America. Consequently, the immediate benefits of imported administrative and organizational technologies often carried high economic, political, and cultural costs.

More recently Latin American scholars have conceived more endogenous conceptual and analytical perspectives of public administration and educational management. Their intellectual contribution is rooted in Latin American theoretical and methodological approaches to the social sciences. These initial  observations suggest that, in order to enhance a better understanding of the current state of knowledge in public administration and educational management in Latin America, it is important to examine its administrative and pedagogical thought in historical perspective.

Even though administration is a millenary practice, its formal study is a relatively recent phenomenon. Modern management theory originates in the developed countries of Europe and North America. It was conceived in the context of the organizational explosion of the Industrial Revolution, as an instrument to organize and to coordinate the rendering of public services and the increasing productive activity in the business world. Three original movements gave birth to the classical school of administration at the beginning of the twentieth century: scientific management in the United States, general management in France, and bureaucratic management in Germany. Their initial principles and practices expanded into universal concepts, which were rapidly spread throughout the world, including Latin American countries. Many  Latin American universities have appropriated these concepts, and their schools of administration and social sciences have taught to successive generations the universal dogmas of the classical school of administration, expounded under the economic and technocratic logic which dominated the consolidation of the Industrial Revolution. In the late 1920s, the concepts and practices of the classical school of administration were challenged by the theoretical developments of the North American human relations movement of the psycho-sociological school of management. This movement gave rise to the behavioral tradition, which was concerned with the institutional effectiveness of management practices to overcome the economic crises of the Great Depression.

The  adoption of the general principles and practices of the classical and behavioral schools of administration in the field of educational management stems from the assumption that these principles and practices were automatically applicable to the management of any institution —no matter what its nature, its objectives or its social and cultural environment. As a result, the educational ends and the pedagogical objectives of schools and universities have frequently been postponed by administrative technologies aligned with immediate economic efficiency and institutional effectiveness. Given the general unsuitability of traditional econocratic logic to educational management, a new consensus has emerged on the need to recover the value of efficiency and effectiveness as management criteria in today’s organizational and administrative theory movement. Nevertheless, to be pertinent, such a recovering effort should define efficiency and effectiveness according to the ethical values that determine educational ends. Where there is a genuine  commitment to the achievement of educational ends and school objectives, administration cannot be conceived as a neutral and universal instrument. In fact, educational management performs a specific political and cultural role, which is historically constructed in a given society. Considering the international efforts to build a free and equitable society, this means that all countries in the North and South, as well as in the East and  West, should face the challenge of conceiving educational institutions and management strategies based on their own cultural traditions and political aims. This multicultural perspective stems from the assumption that genuine cooperation among the nations of the international community can be an effective and democratic strategy for promoting human development and the quality of life.

The correct historical understanding of the roots and the nature of these issues presents the first analytical challenge to Latin American scholars in the field of educational administration. To face the challenge, this essay analyzes the nature of the historical course of administrative theory in Latin American education and discusses its structural conditions and functional characteristics. The text continually attempts to show the historical link between the construction of knowledge in public administration and the construction of knowledge in educational management. Likewise, the study reveals how and why the theoretical developments in educational management in Latin America are historically linked to those of Europe and the United States of America.

This study does not include numerous practical experiences of school administration and university management, many of which have not been empirically studied or published in specialized literature. To do justice to such experiences would require research beyond the scope of this chapter, which is limited to a general presentation of some conceptual and analytical constructions used in the study and  practice of educational administration in Latin America.

Five Conceptual and Analytical Constructions

The history of educational administration in Latin America, like the historical course of public administration, can be studied according to different analytical approaches. This essay relies on five major approaches: juridical, technocratic, behavioral, developmental, and sociological.

Such an analytical framework suggests a permanent process of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge in public administration and educational management throughout the history of political and social institutions of Latin America. As a heuristic instrument, the framework has both limits and potential. From a historical point of view, the instrument has special importance since it allows us to identify the relations between the periods of Latin American history and the corresponding analytical models used in the study of political and social institutions. The bibliography of the social sciences of the Hemisphere reveals that it is possible to study the Latin American historical process according to different approaches or models which are related to different development periods. Latin American scholars, such as Graciarena,2 Germani,3 Pinto,4 and Gerreiro Ramos,5 admit that the historical periodicity and its respective developments models or styles contribute to a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of the evolution of political and social institutions.

The adoption of approaches or models within a historical perspective also takes place in the field of education. Nevertheless, using general approaches from the social sciences to study education and educational management frequently emphasizes those characteristics defined by the specific nature of the educational process and its historical contradictions. Likewise, even if it is possible to identify different models of educational management, which correspond to different periods in the evolution of Latin American pedagogical thought, such models frequently overlap in practice. These and other problems have been pointed out by Latin American scholars, such as Rama6 and Weinberg7 in their studies about educational styles and development models adopted throughout Latin American history. Within these general limits, the framework adopted in this study allows a reconstructionist reading of the history of administrative thought in Latin American education.

Juridical Approach

It is difficult to summarize in these pages the vast literature which describes the academic contributions to the study of the construction of knowledge in the field of educational administration in Latin America from the sixteenth century until the consolidation of the industrialization process in the Hemisphere.  In any event, even if it is important to evaluate the individual scholarly contributions to the study of  educational organization and administration, it is more relevant to examine the dominant intellectual orientation adopted in Latin America in the study of its political and educational institutions.

In general, references made to educational administration in Latin America during the colonial period up to the first decades of the twentieth century used a juridical approach.  This approach was essentially normative and closely tied to the tradition of Roman administrative law, interpreted according to the Napoleonic code. The authors of this period adopted the theoretical elements and intellectual framework conceived in Europe, principally in Spain, Portugal, and France. Such adoption seems natural if one considers that, besides the civil law tradition of these countries, Latin America also imported from Europe most of its culture and most of its political and administrative ideals. In addition to the ready influence of Spain and Portugal, the nineteenth century brought to bear the cultural influence of other European countries, through the assimilation of a large number of immigrants, especially in the countries of the southern zone. Even after World War II, when North American influence became dominant in Latin America, European cultural and educational literature continued to play an important role in academic circles.

The civil law tradition, normative in character and deductive in thinking, provided the legal infrastructure for incorporating the culture and the principles of public administration and educational management developed in the Latin countries of Europe, especially Spain, Portugal, and France. This historical fact explains why, for such a long time, the organizational and administrative principles of the Anglo-Saxon common law did not take hold in Latin America. With this in mind, it is necessary to mention the eloquent dichotomy between legalism and experimentalism. Legalism is one of the basic characteristics of the Continental civil law system inherited by Latin America. Unlike the experimentalism of the common law system, legalism emphasizes order and codification, which implies that administration should form a closed system of knowledge. This orientation results in a preference for anticipatory legislation rather than legislation based on empirical evidence and experimentation. Consequently, in accordance with the principles of the Roman civil law heritage, the law turns into an ideal to be reached, instead of a parameter to be applied to concrete circumstances. Similarly, a clear preference arises for deductive thinking in Latin American academic circles, according to which the individual applies general principles to concrete events. In contrast, those who adhere to the common law tradition adopt an inductive thought process, according to which they start from empirical experience, from the facts observed in a series of cases, and move on to formulate general principles. The understanding of such historical dichotomies is vital to understanding the nature of the evolution of administrative theory in Latin America.

During the colonial era of Latin America, educational administration witnessed few theoretical developments and little systematization of knowledge. Nevertheless, among the pedagogical disciplines of the curricula, the study of educational management attracted significant attention in some countries, judging by what has been published during that period. According to the testimony of Lourenço Filho, for example, approximately one third of the titles of the Brazilian publications on education during the colonial period dealt with matters related to educational organization and administration. In general, those publications were memoirs, reports and descriptions of a subjective, normative, and legalistic character. A similar situation was also observed in Hispano- American countries.

The characteristic values of Christianity, especially those of the Roman Catholic Church, were added, from the sixteenth century on, to the juridical approach inherited from Europe. During the Latin American colonial period, the educational work of the Jesuit Fathers from Spain had a singular influence. After the Jesuits came the Christian Brothers, the Marists, the Salesians, the Benedictins, the Dominicans, and members of other religious orders, whose work consolidated the influence of the Catholic Church in Latin American education. Thus it is not surprising that, in the colonial period, Catholic scholasticism, —characterized by the deductive thinking and the normative character of Loyola’s Ratio Studiorum,9 La Salle’s Conduite des Écoles Chrétiennes,10 and other Catholic publications of that period— has significantly molded the systems of educational organization and administration in Latin America.  Along with the Catholic contribution from Europe, in the nineteenth century the Protestant Churches from the United States of America established important schools in several Latin American countries. In the twentieth century, the Protestant Churches expanded their activities and consolidated a penetrating pedagogical influence in Latin America.

Positivism, which was developed in France in the first half of the nineteenth century under Comte’s intellectual leadership and which was spread rapidly throughout Europe and other parts of the world, also had a decisive influence in Latin American society and education. Positivist ideas spread across all of Latin America and had a special impact in Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina, where its adepts held key positions in the government and deeply influenced philosophical and political thought.11 The influence of positivism in Latin America is registered by the emphasis on the concepts of order, equilibrium, harmony, and progress in the organization and management of political and social institutions. Since the nineteenth century, positivism has exerted its influence on education through the universalistic content of its encyclopedic curriculum, its scientific methodology of a descriptive and empirical nature, and its prescriptive practices of organization and management. Its theories about educational administration generated hypothetico-deductive and normative models, concerned with maintaining order and rational progress in the operation of schools and educational systems. In the first decades of the twentieth century, these models became consolidated in the technocratic perspectives of the classical school of administration. Later, positivism also influenced Latin American educational management through the adoption of the behavioral and functionalist perspectives of the North American psycho-sociological school of administration. In the political arena, positivism had an enormous influence during the struggles for independence in the Latin American countries and in the consolidation of their respective national States. Political independence, however, did not bring sudden change to education and its administrative systems. On the contrary, for a long time, the colonial patterns prevailed, linked to the political and social status quo and to the values of the centers of international economic and political power.

In sum, the evolution of public administration and educational management in the colonial period of Latin America is based, mainly, on the juridical tradition of Roman administrative law, with its normative character and deductive thinking. Christianity reiterates the normative strength and the deductive logic of the juridical approach. Since the last century, positivism has also deeply influenced education, leaving its mark through the introduction of the empirical scientific method, the encyclopedic curriculum, and the normative models of educational management. In this sense, the pedagogical publications of the colonial period reflect the simultaneous influence of scholastic philosophy, positivistic rationalism, and legal formalism in the organization and administration of Latin American education.

Technocratic Approach

The political and intellectual effervescence which characterized the first decades of the twentieth century, especially the years of the Great Depression, was also expressed in the public sector and in education, giving rise to a good number of reform movements in public administration and educational management. Following the theoretical and praxeological developments of business management, technocracy came into existence in public administration. The technocratic approach is based on the predominance of the technicians concerned with adopting rational solutions to resolve organizational and administrative problems. The efficient and rational performance of organizations was the main concern of the reformists, whose analyses and prescriptions were ruled by a technocratic approach in which political considerations, human aspects, and ethical values generally played a secondary role.

The most prominent writings on public administration and educational management in Latin America come from the technocratic period. Latin American protagonists of the technocratic construction sought their theoretical framework in Europe and the United States of America. In general, management theories of this period invoke the tenets of the classical school of administration, as set forth in the first decades of the twentieth century by Fayol12 in France, and by Taylor13 and his followers in the United States of America. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy also decisively influenced the theoretical movements of the reform phase and its subsequent stages.

The technocratic approach emphasizes a machine model concerned with economics, productivity and efficiency. As in the juridical approach of the colonial period, the technocratic construction is normative and deductive. As a solution to the administrative problems associated with the Industrial Revolution, the protagonists of the new approach called for technical reform in public administration, including a reorganization of the civil service. Along this line, they defended the separation between politics and administration. In accordance with the traditional principles of political theory, they maintained that power should be divided among the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Nevertheless, as an instrument of analysis and prescription, this model did not prove to be functional in those societies where the three branches of power are mutually overlapping and where, mostly, the executive has a more privileged position in relation to the legislature and the judiciary, as was the case of Latin American nations throughout their political history. Here one can find one of the discrepancies in the technocratic approach, beyond its reforming merits. History eloquently reveals that politics and administration are inseparable. In reality, administration can be conceived as a particular practice of politics, which itself is defined as the global practice of collective human life.

The adoption of the universal principles and practices of the classical school of administration in the public sector of Latin American countries has hindered an interdisciplinary approach more appropriate to Latin American culture and society. In general, studies of this stage described organizational and administrative situations in terms of agreement or disagreement between the observed behavior and the principles of scientific, general, and bureaucratic administration advanced by Taylor, Fayol, and Weber respectively. These studies were exploratory descriptions of reality, with a reduced theoretical basis and limited concern for explaining events. The descriptions focussed on the formal management dimension, putting aside the aspect of political action. Special emphasis fell on the organizational characteristics of the administrative system, with reduced attention to the influence of the economic, political and cultural factors of organizational life.

In educational management, the technocratic approach emphasizes organizational and administrative solutions deeply-rooted in the instrumental pragmatism of the beginning of the twentieth century. For the scholars of that period, pedagogy was supposed to offer technical solutions to meet the real difficulties faced by educational management. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that, during the technocratic phase of Latin American management and up to the present, the influence of the Roman administrative law tradition has been pervasive. As a consequence, specialists and technocrats, as providers of pragmatic solutions to educational administrative problems, could not counteract the historical adherence to the abstract theories of the juridical approach. This is only one example of how approaches and paradigms overlap in the historical process of construction and reconstruction of scientific and technological knowledge in public administration and educational management. The reconstruction of a pathway implies a process of deconstruction which does not stamp out the footprints, hidden or evident, of previous constructions.

The reformist atmosphere of the 1930’s gave birth to the first attempts to systematize organizational and administrative theories adopted in education and to write the first essays of educational management in Latin America. These essays responded significantly to the academic encouragement coming from Europe and the United States of America. As happened in public administration, Latin American scholars in educational management started to adopt an essentially technical approach, both normative and pragmatic in nature. This approach to educational management found its defenders in several Latin America countries.  Let us take as an example the Brazilian case, where the reformist approach of the period of the New School of the 1930’s is evident in the writings of Anísio Teixeira,15 who interpreted the pedagogical pragmatism of James and Dewey; of Querino Ribeiro,16 who followed Fayol’s orientation; and of Carneiro Leão and Lourenço Filho,17 who adopted a more comprehensive classical orientation. In the Brazilian context, Anísio Teixeira profoundly influenced the field of public policies and educational management, deeply marking pedagogical thought from the 1930’s until the decade of the 1970’s. In the Latin American context, Lourenço Filho has had a great influence in the specific field of educational management, from the 1930s up to the 1960s. His main book, School Organization and Administration, originally written in Portuguese and later translated into Spanish, was widely used in higher education and advanced training activities throughout the Hemisphere.

In sum, during the technocratic period, educational management, like public administration, was fundamentally based on the principles of the classical school of administration with its scientific, bureaucratic, and general movements. Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out that in the academic production of the reformist phase some theoretical constructions —such as those of Anísio Teixeira and Lourenço Filho—  beyond the ideas enforced in Europe and in North America, were concerned about maintaining cultural identity and promoting the characteristic values of Latin American society. Likewise, the imported models were often adopted only partially, since they were not conceived within the cultural and political reality of Latin American nations, and they did not pay due attention to the human dimension of administration.

Behavioral Approach

Since the 1940’s, Latin American scholars have joined the growing international reaction, which began a decade earlier in Europe and the United States, against the traditional principles and practices of the classical school of administration that inspired the technocratic approach. Central to this reaction is the recovery of the human dimension of administration in the factories, government organizations, and schools and universities. It is in this context that the behavioral approach emerges in business management as well as in public administration and in educational management. In the history of management thought, the beginning of the behavioral approach is generally identified with the emergence of the psychologically-oriented human relations movement supported by Hawthorne’s studies carried out between 1924 and 1927. The human relations movement was philosophically prepared by Follet18 and initially developed by Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Dickson19 at Harvard University. Later on, management history highlights Simon’s20 pioneer conceptions about the decision making process and administrative behavior, along with Barnard’s21 definitions about organizations as cooperative systems and his concepts of efficiency and effectiveness in performing administrative functions. The contributions of both authors exceeded the traditional theories of organization and management and had a significant influence on the new scientific and technological developments in the field of administration.

The theoretical bases of the behavioral construction can be found in psychology, sociology and, especially, in social psychology. The use of these disciplines has been particularly important in conceiving and developing new approaches to administrative practice, such as group dynamics, organizational development, leadership training and executive development, transactional analysis, and systems theory. The behavioral approach has been used more frequently in business administration than in public administration, where its practical application has faced difficulties, despite theoretical developments in the academic field. The behavioral construction, which highlights the interaction between the human dimension and the institutional dimension, has a decisive presence in education, especially in the systems approach to educational management.

The subjective dimension of human behavior has been a concern in educational management for the last two centuries, due to the historical link between psychology pedagogy in advanced studies of education and in educational practice in general.  In fact, the use of psychology in educational management goes back to the pedagogical psychologism of the early nineteenth century, when Pestalozzi22 and Froebel23 claimed that education should take into account the psychological reality of the learner, along with all the demands of his or her subjective world.

Educational psychology was later complemented by the sociology of education, initially by Durkheim,24 whose work has had a deep influence in Latin America. The theoretical confluence of educational psychology and sociology resulted in the social psychology of education, which influenced the studies of educational management for more than half a century. In this context, the psycho-sociological theories of Parsons, Katz and Kahn, Getzels25 and other functionalist thinkers in North America became noteworthy. Their behavioral models were extensively published and widely used in advanced studies of education in Latin America. An outstanding example of such a contribution of social psychology to educational management is Alonso’s well known text, The Role of the Principal in School Administration.26 Her work, like many other Latin American studies of educational management of the behavioral phase, adopts the functionalist concepts and the specific analytical instruments of systems theory applied to education and school administration.

Systems theory accounts for an important chapter in the history of modern scientific thought, through its outstanding presence in education and administration and its use of different models and applications. A systems analysis of the evolution of public administration and educational management reveals that, historically, the mechanical model of the closed management systems of the classical school has given way to the organic model of the functionalist management systems of the psycho-sociological school, which, in turn, has been superseded by the adaptable model of the open management systems of contemporary administration.

It was Coomb’s book, The World Education Crisis,27 that internationalized systems theory as an instrument to analyze educational organization and management. This and other similar publications on educational management adopt an organic and comprehensive approach to studying the interaction among different dimensions of educational systems, such as: the human dimension, which refers to human beings with their potentialities and need-dispositions; the institutional dimension, which involves  educational institutions with their multiple  internal structures; and the social dimension which refers to the external community, with its economic, political, and cultural organizations.

Evaluating the application of systems theory in Latin American education allows us to identify its potentialities and fallacies as an analytical and praxeological instrument of educational management. Its integrative concept of totality has allowed us to move on analyzing education and educational management as a global and multidimensional process. The concepts of totality and multidimensionality have demanded a more interdisciplinary and contextual approach to the study and practice of education. The epistemological analysis of the meaning and the limits of systems theory in Latin American educational management also reveals its fallacies, especially the juridical fallacy, which characterizes the legal formalism of the colonial period; the technocratic fallacy, associated with mechanomorphic and rationalistic conceptualizations and practices of organization and administration of the first decades of the twentieth century; and the behavioral fallacy, linked to organomorphic and psycho- sociological functionalism, which characterizes educational thought in the postwar period.

Later on,  behavioral construction is reconstructed into the movement of organizational development, a new systems effort with new instruments for achieving congruence between the institutional and individual dimensions of social organizations. In spite of the positive results obtained in business administration, Latin American scholars have identified difficulties with its effective use in public administration and  educational management. For example, it has been hard to reconcile the organic concepts of organizational development, which were taken from the natural sciences, with the bureaucratic tradition of Latin American public administration, which was clearly influenced by Weber and other European writers.29 Nevertheless, some analysts maintain that this difficulty “is not inherent to organizational development in itself,”30 as it was conceived in and for the United States of America. The problem rather lies in the methodological unsuitability of the Anglo-American organizational approach to the cultural values and the institutional patterns of Latin American society. An increasing awareness of the need for the political and cultural fitness of management theory would chart a new course in the evolution of administrative thought, based on Latin American contributions in the field of applied social sciences.

A more recent reaction to the technocratic approach in Latin American educational administration is evident in the phenomenological perspective, which conceives educational management as a pedagogical act31 rather than as a business act or a commercial practice. The protagonists of the pedagogical perspective in Latin American universities defend the specificity of educational administration as a professional field of study. In this sense, the administrator performs a direct approach to educational phenomena, with the objective of interpreting them as they appear in real life. The authors of the phenomenological approach are committed to the effective achievement of educational aims and school objectives. The phenomenological orientation of the pedagogical approach to educational management has had a decisive influence in Latin America. Nevertheless, besides its educational achievements, it could not handle the enormous structural problems affecting contemporary education. The awareness of this fact highlighted the need for a more comprehensive and contextual approach to the study and practice of educational administration, which will be developed later on.

Developmental Approach

In the postwar economic reconstruction, the prevailing administrative movement is that of development administration.32 The developmental approach to administration originates in the United States of America in the context of comparative political theory and is associated, from the beginning, with that of comparative public administration. The developmental approach to administration results from a number of factors, including the international experience of American researchers and executives during World War II and the need to administer the services of technical assistance and financial aid during the postwar period, especially the programs of the Marshall Plan in Europe and those of the Alliance for Progress in America. The study of development administration was strengthened in North-American universities as a specialized field of comparative public administration and became popular in scientific and professional associations, such as the American Association of Political Sciences and the American Society of Public administration.

The protagonists of the developmental construction of administration focus on organizational and administrative requirements to achieve the aims of national development in those countries where attaining  these objectives implies important economic and social transformations. Arguing that the traditional management models are unfit to carry out a comprehensive study of public administration in poor countries, the development scholars conceive an administrative perspective specifically suited to the management of development programs and to the study of how governments implement policies and plans for achieving economic and social objectives. Initially, the developmental approach was essentially normative, prescriptive, and committed to both the conceptualization and implementation of economic and social development. Subsequent studies adopted a more “empirical, nomothetic and ecological” orientation.33

In Latin America, the model of development administration was used predominantly by foreign authors and national followers in their descriptive and prescriptive efforts related to the modernization of public administration. The fact is that, in light of the optimism of the postwar economic reconstruction era, the concept of a modernizing State was a fundamental ingredient of the programs of foreign agencies of technical assistance and financial aid.34 Nevertheless, the implementation of these programs frequently faced difficulties due to the lack of economic rationality and political responsiveness, and their reduced attention to the cultural factors of Latin American society.

In Latin American educational management, the developmental approach to administration coincides with the “economic paradigm” identified by Tedesco35 in his critical analysis of the development of Latin American educational research, and with the concept of “education for economic growth” which Braslavsky36 points out in her review of educational models adopted throughout Latin American history.  The development construction, in turn, enters the powerful international movement of the “economics of education” and its related fields, such as human resources development planning, the theory of human capital, the investment in the human being, and the rates of individual and social return of schooling.37 Based on the economic logic which underlies these movements, educational planning emerges with the decisive support of technical assistance agencies from industrialized nations, of inter- governmental organizations of intellectual cooperation, and of international credit organizations.  In this context, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) organized in 1958, in Washington, DC, the historical foundational conference on educational planning. In 1962, the Ministers of Education and of National Planning of the Americas, in a  meeting in Santiago under the sponsorship of UNESCO, OAS and ECLAC, defined, at the political level, the role of education as a fundamental factor of economic development, as an instrument of technological progress, and as a means of selection and social promotion. Also during the 1960’s, renowned North American universities, such as Harvard and Stanford, created centers and programs of education and development, and started to train selected groups of educational planners and administrators. In Santiago and other Latin American cities, ECLAC, ILPES, UNESCO and the OAS started systematic training programs in educational planning and development.  The seminars and courses organized by UNESCO and IIPE, and the multinational projects in educational administration and planning organized by the Regional Program for Educational Development of the OAS in cooperation with selected universities in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Panama, Peru, Mexico, Venezuela and the United States had a great  and lasting effect. Simultaneously, offices for educational and human resources development planning were created in the Ministries of Education of Latin American nations. The Ministries of National Planning inaugurated a systematic process of government planning in Latin America.  Numerous triennial, quinquennial and decennial plans of economic development were prepared in the 1960’s and the 1970’s, including the respective sector plans for educational development.

These facts are closely related to a general conviction that education is the most important factor of national development, the “driving force of economic growth.”38  For this reason, educational services were thoroughly planned to fulfill the manpower requirements of the industrialization of Latin American countries. In terms of preparing people for modern life, education was conceived in the context of labor market requirements, in terms of efficient and productive individuals. In reality, productivity and efficiency were major concerns of the adepts of development pedagogy, who found in technology the new modernizing instrument of education and society. During this period, Latin America experienced an era of pedagogical optimism. Statistics reveal an enormous growth of educational systems in terms of schools, colleges, universities, enrollment, graduates and public resources for education.

Nevertheless, in the decade of the 1970’s, facts have revealed, with a growing pessimism, that the investment in Latin American education did not pay the expected dividends in terms of economic growth and technological progress. The failure was even more distressing in terms of human development, quality of life  and social equity. The pedagogical optimism of the previous decades entered a crisis.39 According to Tedesco, the educational system, which decades earlier was considered a powerful  agent of change and a source of progress, has instead inspired pessimism and disappointment.40 Thus it was necessary to re-evaluate the role of education and the relevance of educational management in Latin America. Critical evaluations revealed that, although economic value is an important dimension of educational management, it is not enough. Other aspects of the social sciences offer valuable inputs to evaluate and guide the practice of public administration and educational management, as will be developed later on.

Sociological Approach

As the developmental approach to public administration and educational management of the foreign authors was phased out, Latin American scholars conceived a sociological approach, based upon the intersection of conceptual and analytical contributions of the applied social sciences. Concerned about the political and cultural suitability of scientific and technological knowledge in education and administration, Latin American scholars showed a renewed interest in using theoretical and methodological paradigms of Latin American origin. In this context, the most relevant and powerful endogenous development in Latin American social sciences was the theory of dependence, rooted in ECLAC’s structuralism, interpreted by Prebisch41 in economics and by Cardoso42 in sociology. In education, the most outstanding interpreter of Latin American critical thinking of the period was Freire.43  The most important pedagogical contribution in the line of the theory of dependence is found in Berger’s posthumous publication, Education and Dependence.44  Historically, the theory of dependence presented an important intellectual contribution.  Nevertheless, as a result of the superseding efforts of its creators and followers in the context of the new international reality, ECLAC’s structuralism gave way to renewed intellectual developments, with the purpose of facing the new challenges of modern global society, as will be developed in Chapter Four.

According to Latin American thinkers, public administration and educational management play a political, sociological and anthropological role.45 Consequently, for the authors of this period, management capability is measured primarily according political, sociological and anthropological variables and only secondarily by juridical and technical variables. Along these lines, Mello e Souza points out that “the application of scientific administration to public administration in developing countries has been impaired mainly by problems that are not of a technical nature... (as) the main focus of resistance is socio-political and is due to the structural characteristics of underdeveloped societies.”46

For the protagonists of the sociological construction, like Guerreiro Ramos and Mello e Souza, the political and cultural inadequacy of organizational and administrative theories helps to explain  the failures of the reform movements in Latin American public administration. To a great extent, these reform movements did not reach the expected results because the orientations and techniques adopted were not related to administrative needs and to the overall ecology of Latin American development. According to the new writers, the Latin American administrative system is a paternalistic one, depending on the socio-political environment. If for the ethics of the writers of the previous periods such a paternalistic system is pathological, the scholars of the sociological phase claim that the system only becomes pathological when judged on an exogenous scale of values. In this sense, the new writers face the challenge of conceiving administrative perspectives based on the cultural and political values of Latin American society and of its social institutions. Nevertheless, the challenge lies not so much in rejecting the juridical values, the technical rationality, the psychological humanism, and the economic value of the previous approaches, but in overcoming the existing problems in the larger socio-political context.

In Latin American education, while the possibilities of pedagogical developmentalism were being questioned, leading educators turned to an interdisciplinary social science approach. Back in 1963 Lourenço Filho47 believed that knowledge of the pedagogical disciplines was not enough for the study and the practice of school administration. He argued that educational management theory should be developed in a comprehensive “interdisciplinary domain,” in order to deal adequately with the complexity of educational systems. Along the same lines, Mascaro48 suggested a “critical analysis of a historical and sociological nature” to explain the causes of weaknesses of Latin American school management and, on this basis, he insisted on the need to create solutions for educational administrative problems. From a more comprehensive and ideological perspective, Freire’s contribution, to a certain extent, reconstructs in the field of education some of the liberation ideals advanced by the theory of dependence in the context of international economic and political relations. More important than reviewing these and other individual contributions, it is relevant to examine the historical factors and conditions associated with the sociological approach to the study of educational administration during the 1960s and 1970’s. Three factors have been particularly important:  the organized action of the professional educational associations; the creation and development of graduate studies in education; and the technical support of international cooperation.

During the 1960’s and the 1970’s, Latin American educators developed a significant organizational effort, creating and consolidating academic associations of professionals and institutions in different areas of education. In the specific field of educational management, professional and academic associations have been created in different countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. In the history of Latin American educational administration, it is important to highlight the pioneering character of the National Association of Professionals in Educational Administration (ANPAE) from Brazil, founded in 1961 in São Paulo.49 ANPAE’s publications and national conferences have played an important role in the development and diffusion of administrative thought in Brazilian education. ANPAE’s Ninth National Conference, which took place in 1978 in Curitiba, was a historical landmark in the study of Brazilian educational administration in the context of the social sciences. It was on that occasion that the specificity of educational management as a professional field of study was reiterated more clearly. At the close of that period, the Inter-American Society for Educational Administration50 was founded by the participants of the First Inter-American Congress on Educational Administration, which took place in 1979 in Brasilia, under the auspices of ANPAE, UCEA and the OAS. Its aim was  to study the relationship between politics and educational management in the overall context of the applied social sciences.

One  important change in Latin American education since the 1960s is the development of graduate education, especially in the field of educational planning and administration, as a result of national efforts and international technical cooperation. The most significant projects were developed by national universities and institutions of advanced learning and educational research. National efforts were supported and complemented, since the 1960s up to the present, by the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO), especially its Regional Office of Education for Latin America and the Caribbean (OREALC) and its International Institute for Educational Planning (IIPE); the Organization of American States (OAS) and its Regional Educational Development Program; the Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture (OEI); and the Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO). All these organizations have National and/or Regional Offices in the different countries of the Hemisphere, which have helped to develop extensive networks of institutions and professionals in education and educational planning and management. The analytical effort developed in graduate education and in other academic activities of the Latin American universities, in collaboration with international technical assistance programs, has played a decisive role in changing the traditional normative character of Latin American education to an increasingly sociological approach. Scientific research and the training of professionals in the field of educational management have been primary concerns in both national activities and international programs of technical cooperation.

During the sociological phase, interpreters of the social sciences approach to the study of educational administration tried to confront the economic, political and cultural demands and peculiarities of Latin America. To achieve this objective, there has been an increasing effort to adopt a perspective of educational management based on the economic, political and cultural needs and aspirations of Latin America given the reality of the decade of transition toward the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, due to the intense international circulation of scientific and technological knowledge as a result of electronic communications, the bibliography produced in the developed nations has become an important source in Latin American educational research and practice. Present evidence suggests that the international circulation of knowledge will increase significantly in our Global Village.

Conclusion:
Toward the Construction of New Pathways

Because of the complexity of the epistemological bases of contemporary administration, it is not easy to assess recent developments and to formulate new perspectives for the future. Such a task, in addition to  analyzing historical  experience, requires a detailed examination of the conditions and needs of the present and a careful prospective study about future possibilities and demands. With this in mind, these concluding observations are only a preliminary statement about tendencies in the organizational and administrative theory movement in Latin American education, which will be analyzed more extensively in the following chapters.

The first concern was to carry out a critical reading of the evolution of administrative thought in Latin America to facilitate the understanding of its present state of knowledge and its future perspectives.  More than two decades ago, Nascimento pointed out that twentieth century administrative theory has evolved from “an executory vision to a decisional vision, from a human engineering conception to an applied social sciences conception, and from a closed systems approach to and open systems approach.”51 These three analytical axes of administrative phenomena highlight two criteria which define traditional administration: efficiency and effectiveness. According to Nascimento, efficiency, as an internal performance criterion orientated toward rational and technical processes and instruments, characterizes the executory vision, the conception of human engineering, and the closed systems approach. On the other hand, effectiveness, as a performance criterion orientated toward the achievement of social aims, characterizes the decisional vision, the applied social sciences conception, and the open systems approach.

In the last decades, new chapters have been written on the construction of knowledge in public administration and educational management, emphasizing the increasing importance of economic, political and cultural factors in the operation of contemporary organizations. These chapters develop new theorical perspectives on administration and new guiding criteria for evaluating administrative behavior in businesses, in public organizations, and in schools and universities. Together with administrative productivity and rationality, measured in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, arise the superseding concepts of responsiveness and relevance as political and cultural criteria of administrative performance. Likewise, based on today’s ideals of individual freedom and participatory democracy, the concepts of identity and equity are put forward as central values that should inform public administration and educational management, at both local and national levels and in the international context.

The concept of responsiveness goes beyond the technical criteria of efficiency and effectiveness. It is concerned with attaining  extended political and social objectives. The concept of relevance, defined in light of the ideals of human development and quality of life, prevails as a key-criterion in contemporary administration, reaching beyond the heuristic and praxeological capacity of traditional administrative criteria and the limitations of the econocratic approaches deprived of ethical values and cultural perspective.52 As a criterion of administrative performance defined according to interpretations of cultural values, the concept of relevance is closely linked to the concepts of individual identity and social equity, which demand from scholars and practitioners, beyond technical know-how, an ethical commitment to promoting human development and the quality of life. This commitment is highlighted in recent theoretical efforts to define a relevant methodology for the study of public administration,53 to conceive new perspectives of social management based on the concept of sustained human development,54 and to formulate proposals for the training and improvement of school administrators based on a multidimensional and multicultural perspective of educational management.55

The importance of substantive concepts, such as the quality of life and human development, political responsiveness and cultural relevance, individual identity and social equity, are highlighted as guiding criteria in the study and the practice of educational administration in Latin America, as will be developed in the following chapters. In fact, the need for these concepts is advanced, in an implicit or explicit way and with different perceptions and interpretations, in recent studies on educational management in Latin America.56 In this context, the consolidation of politically responsive and culturally relevant perspectives on educational management, capable of promoting individual identity and social equity in Latin American education and able to meet efficiently and effectively the needs of educational institutions, constitutes an intellectual challenge of great proportions. The direction that the study and the practice of educational administration will take in Latin America as it moves into the third  millennium depends, to a great extent, on our capacity to face this challenge.

 

NOTES

1. Some of the conceptual and analytical developments presented in this essay were originally published in Brazil by Benno Sander, Administração da Educação no Brasil: Evolução do Conhecimento, Fortaleza, Edições Universidade Federal do Ceará/Associação Nacional de Profissionais de Administração da Educação (ANPAE), 1982. The scope of the original 1982 publication was limited to the theory development in the field of educational administration in Brazil.

2. Jorge Graciarena, “Poder y Estilos de Desarrollo: Una Perspectiva Heterodoxa,” Revista de la CEPAL, Santiago, Chile, first semester, 1976, pp. 173-93.

3. Gino Germani, Política y Sociedad en una Época en Transición, Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1962.

4. Anibal Pinto, “Notas sobre los Estilos de Desarrollo en América Latina,” Santiago, Chile, pp. 97-128.

5. In his sociological contribution to the study of public administration, Alberto Guerreiro Ramos examines the evolution of Western administrative thought by utilizing three subsequent models: juridical, technical, and sociological. See A. Gerreiro Ramos, Uma Introdução ao Histórico da Organização Racional do Trabalho, Rio de Janeiro, Departamento de Imprensa Nacional, 1950.

6. Germán W. Rama, “Educación, Imágenes y Estilos de Desarrollo, in Educación, Participación y Estilos de Desarrollo en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Editorial Kapelusz, 1984.

7. Gregorio Weinberg, Modelos Educativos en la Historia de América Latina, Buenos Aires, Editorial Kapelusz, 1984.

8. M. B. Lourenço Filho, Organização e Administração Escolar, São Paulo, Edição Melhoramentos, 1963, p. 271.

9. Leonel  Franca, O Método Pedagógico dos Jesuítas, Rio de Janeiro, Agir, 1952.

10. Jean Baptiste de La Salle, La Conduite des Écoles Chrétiennes, Reims,1720; W. J. Battersby, De La Salle: Pioneer of Modern Education, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America,1949.

11. To evaluate the decisive influence of positivism on the formation of national political and cultural institutions in Brazil, based on the early leadership of Miguel Lemos, Raimundo Teixeira Mendes, Luis Pereira Barreto y Benjamin Costant, see Sílvio Romero, O Evolucionismo e o Positivismo no Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Livraria Francisco Alves, 1895; Fernando de Azevedo, A Cultura Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro, Serviço Gráfico do IBGE, 1943. To examine the influence of positivism in Mexican politics and education since the initial work of Justo Sierra and José Yvo Limantour,  see Leopoldo Zea, Del Liberalismo a la Revolución en la Educación Mexicana, México, Biblioteca del Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos sobre la Revolución Mexicana, 1956. The most outstanding positivist philosophers in Chile were Juan Enrique Lagarrigue and his brother  Jorge Lagarrigue. To study the presence of positivism in Argentina, see Ricaurte Soler, El Positivismo Argentino, Paraná, Imprenta Nacional, 1958; Juan Carlos Tedesco, “El Positivismo Pedagógico Argentino,” Revista de Ciencias de la Educación, Buenos Aires, nº 9, 1973.

12. Henri Fayol, Administration Industrielle et Générale, Paris, Dunod, 1916.

13. Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1911.

14. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York, The Free Press, 1947.  (Originally published in Germany in 1921)

15. Anísio S. Teixeira, Educação Pública, sua Organização e Administração, 1935. See also his paper “A Administração Pública Brasileira e a Educação,” Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, Rio de Janeiro, INEP, vol. 25, nº 61, january/march, 1956. The extensive contribution of this influential Brazilian scholar reveals a growing move from American pragmatism toward a more comprehensive sociopolitical orientation. For an analysis of Anísio Teixeira’s influence in Brazilian education, see Fátima Cunha Ferreira Pinto, Filosofia da Escola Nova: Do Ato Político ao Ato Pedagógico, Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro/Universidade Federal Fluminense, 1986.

16. José Querino Ribeiro, Fayolismo na Administração das Escolas Públicas, São Paulo, 1938.

17. Antônio Carneiro Leão, Introdução à Administração Escolar, São Paulo, Edição Melhoramentos, 1939; M. B. Lourenço Filho, Organização e Administração Escolar, São Paulo, Edição Melhoramentos, 1963.

18. The most important essays of Mary Parker Follet were edited, after her death, by Mary C. Metcalf  and Lindall Urwick, in Dinamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Follet, New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1942.

19. Elton Mayo, The Human Problem of an Industrial Civilization, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1933;  Fritz J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1939.

20. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, New York, McMillan Book Company, 1945.

21. Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1938.

22. Johann H. Pestalozzi, Wie Gertrud ihre Kinder lehrt, 1801.

23. Friedrich Froebel, Die Menschenerziehung, 1826.

24. Émile Durkheim, Education and Sociology, Glencoe, Ill., The Free Press, 1956; Émile Durkheim The Rules of the Sociological Method, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1938.

25. Talcott Parsons, The Social System, New York, The Free Press, 1949; Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, John Wiley  and Sons, Inc., 1966; Jacob W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, “Social Behavior and Administrative Process,” School Review, nº 65, 1957, pp. 432-441; J. W. Getzels, J. M. Lipham and J. W. Campbell, Educational Administration as a Social Process,  New York, Harper and Row Publishers, 1968.

26. Myrtes Alonso, O Papel do Diretor na Administração Escolar, São Paulo, Difel/Educ, 1976.

27. Philip Coombs, A Crise Mundial da Educação, São Paulo, Perspectiva, 1976.

28. Systems theory applied to education has been the target of systematic criticism in specialized pedagogical literature. See, for example, Dermeval Saviani, Educação Brasileira: Estrutura e Sistema, São Paulo, Saraiva, 1973; Benno Sander, Sistemas na Educação Brasileira: Solução ou Falácia, São Paulo, Saraiva, 1985.

29. For an analysis of the application of the organizational development approach to public administration, see Bianor Scelza Cavalcanti, “DO: Considerações sobre Objetivos, Valores e Processos,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 13, nº 2, april/june, 1979, pp. 49-84.

30. Eurico Carvalho da Cunha, “Desenvolvimento Organizacional no Contexto Brasileiro,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 13, nº 2, april/june, 1979, p. 98.

31. Antonio Muniz de Rezende, José Camilo dos Santos Filho, and Maria Lúcia Rocha Duarte Carvalho, “Administração Universitária como ato Pedagógico,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, DF, vol. I, nº 2, 1978, pp. 15-58.

32. Among the most comprehensive bibliographic sources on the subject are: Ferrel Heady and Sybil Stokes, Comparative Public Administration: A Selective Annotated Bibliography, Ann Arbor, Michigan, The University of Michigan, Institute of Public Administration, 1960; Allan A. Spitz and Edward W. Weidner, Development Administration: An Annotated Bibliography, Honolulu, East-West Center Press, 1963.

33. Fred W. Riggs, “Trends in the Comparative Study of Public Administration,” International Review of Administrative Science, nº 1, 1962, p. 15. At that time, Riggs played a leading role in the creation and development of the academic field of comparative public administration. His most influential publication in the United States, which had  significant impact in other parts of the world, is Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society, Boston, Mass., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964. For an examination of Riggs’ influence in Latin American educational administration, see Benno Sander, David K. Kline and Russell G. Davis, Formalismo Educacional en los Países en Desarrollo, Washington, DC, Organization of American States, Department of Educational Affairs, 1974; Benno Sander, Educação Brasileira: Valores Formais e Valores Reais, São Paulo, Pioneira/Ministério da Educação e Cultura, 1977.

34. Analysis of the dependent modernization model can be found in Bernardo Kliksberg, Administración, Subdesarrollo y Estrangulamiento Tecnológico, Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1973;  Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Sociología y Subdesarrollo, México, Ed. Nuestro Tiempo, 1973; Carlos Pallán Figueroa, Bases para la Administración de la Educación Superior en América Latina: El Caso de México, México, DF, INAP, 1978; Carlos Pallán Figueroa, La Enseñanza de la Administración Pública y el Ejercicio Profesional, México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Colección Pensamiento Universitario, 1992.

35. Juan Carlos Tedesco, El Desafío Educativo: Calidad y Democracia, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1987, pp. 13-24.

36. Cecilia Braslavsky, “Un Desafío Fundamental de la Educación Latinoamericana en los Próximos 25 Años: Construir su Sentido,” La Educación,  Washington, DC, year 31, no. 101, 1987, pp. 69-82.

37. Among the publications on the economics of education and human capital in Latin America, are: Martin Carnoy “Rates of Return to Schooling in Latin America,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 2, nº 3, 1967;  A. Harberger y M. Selowsky, Key Factors in the Economic Growth of Chile,  Paper presented  at Cornell University, 1966, mimeo;  M. Urrutia Montoya, “Distribución de la Educación y Distribución del Ingreso en Colombia,” Revista del Centro de Estudios Educativos,  México, nº 1, 1972; J. Lobo, “Educación y Distribución del Ingreso en Venezuela,” Revista del Centro de Estudios Educativos, México, nº 1, 1972;  Ricardo Carciofi, Acerca del Debate sobre Educación y Empleo en América Latina, Buenos Aires, DEALC, 1980;  Claudio de Moura Castro, “Investment in Education in Brazil: A Study of Two Industrial Communities,” Ph.D. Dissertation for the University of  Vanderbilt, 1970;  Samuel Levy, “An Economic Analysis of Investment in Education in the State of São Paulo,” Instituto de Estatísticas Econômicas, Universidade de São Paulo, 1969; Carlos Langoni, “A Study in Economic Growth: The Brazilian Case,” Ph. D. Dissertation for the University of Chicago, 1970.

38. See Ricardo Nassif, “Las Tendencias Pedagógicas en América Latina, 1960- 1980,” in Germán W. Rama, ed., Mudanças Educacionais na América Latina, Fortaleza, Edições Universidade Federal do Ceará, 1983, pp. 122-168.

39. For a discussion of the limitations of the optimistic views of Latin American education, see Daniel Filmus, Para qué Sirve la Escuela, Buenos Aires, Tesis-Grupo Editorial Norma, 1993, pp. 67-72.  See also Juan Carlos Tedesco, “Elementos para un Diagnóstico del Sistema Educativo Tradicional en América Latina,” in Germán W. Rama, ed., Mudanças Educacionais na América Latina, Fortaleza, Edições Universidade Federal do Ceará, 1983, pp. 85-86.

40. Juan Carlos Tedesco, “Elementos para un Diagnóstico del Sistema Educativo Tradicional en América Latina,” in Germán W. Rama, ed., Mudanças Educacionais na América Latina, Fortaleza,  Edições Universidade Federal do Ceará, 1983, pp. 85-86.

41. Raúl Prebisch, Transformação e Desenvolvimento: A Grande Tarefa da América Latina, Rio de Janeiro, Fundação Getulio Vargas, 1973.

42. Rernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependência e Desenvolvimento na América Latina: Ensaio de Interpretação Sociológica, Rio de Janeiro, Editora Zahar, 1970.

43. Paulo Freire, Pedagogia do Oprimido, Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1977; P. Freire, Educação como Prática da Liberdade, Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra, 1989.

44. Manfredo Berger, Educação e Dependência, São Paulo, Diffel, 1980.

45. Among the leading representatives of the sociological approach to public administration are: Alberto Guerreiro Ramos, “Fundamentos Sociológicos da Administração Pública,” Jornal do Brasil, parte 2, section 2, november 11, 1956, p. 8; Celso Furtado, ”Political Obstacles to Economic Growth in Brazil," International Affairs, nº 41, april, 1965; Rogério Feital Pinto, Ecología Política del BNDE: Un Estudio de Política, Desarrollo y Administración Pública, Washington, DC, Organization of American States, Departament of Economic Affairs, 1969; Nelson de Mello e Souza (with the cooperation of Breno Genari), “Public Administration and Economic Development,” in Robert T. Daland, ed., Perspectives of Brazilian Public Administration, Los Angeles, University of Southern California, 1963, vol. I, pp. 145-149; Jorge Katz, Bernardo Kliksberg, Alejandro Carrillo Castro, Tomás Vasconi, and others, Estado y Tecnología Administrativa en América Latina, Caracas, Monte Ávila Editores, 1977.

46. Nelson de Mello e Souza, Op. Cit.,  pp. 148-149.

47. M. B. Lourenço Filho, Organização e Administração Escolar, São Paulo, Edição Melhoramentos, 1963.

48. Carlos Corrêa Mascaro, Aministração Escolar na América Latina, Salvador, Bahia, ANPAE, 1968.

49. The Brazilian National Association of Professionals in Educational Administration (ANPAE) was established in 1961 by the participants of the First Brazilian Conference on Educational Administration held at the University of São Paulo. Its first President was Antonio Pithon Pinto, Professor of Educational Administration at the Federal University of Bahia.

50. The Inter-American Society for Educational Administration was established by representatives of 20 countries of the American Continent in december 1979 at the First Inter-American Conference on Educational Administration sponsored by ANPAE and UCEA at the Brazilian National Congress. Its Founding President was Benno Sander, Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Brasília and the Universidade Federal Fluminense in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro.

51. Kleber Tatinge do Nascimento, “A Revolução Conceptual da Administração: Implicações para a Formulação dos Papéis e Funções de um Executivo,” Revista de Administração Pública,  Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, nº 2,  april/june, 1972, pp. 5-52.

52. See Paulo Roberto Motta, “Administração para o Desenvolvimento: A Disciplina em Busca de Relevância,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 3, nº 3, july/september, 1972, p. 47.

53. Paulo Reis Vieira and Anna Maria Campos, “Em Busca de uma Metodologia de Pesquisa Relevante para a Administração Pública,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 14, nº 3, july/september, 1980, pp. 101-110. See also Anna Maria Campos, “Em Busca de Novos Caminhos para a Teoria de Organização,” Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 15, nº 1, january/march, 1981, pp. 104-123.

54. Bernardo Kliksberg, ed., Pobreza: Un Tema Impostergable, México, DF, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993, pp. 91-108 y 353-368.

55. Benno Sander, “Administração da Educação no Brasil: É Hora da Relevância,” Educação Brasileira, Brasilia, year 4, no. 9, second semester, 1982; Benno Sander and Thomas Wiggins, “The Cultural Context of Administrative Theory: In Consideration of a Multidimensional Paradigm,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, winter, 1985, pp. 95-117; Colleen A. Capper, ed., Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society, Albany, NY, The State University of  New York Press, 1993. Chapters by  Collen Capper, Benno Sander and William D. Greenfield are particularly relevant. For a recent review on the cultural and cross-national context of educational organization and management theory, see Philip Hallinger, “Culture and Leadership: Developing an International Perspective on Educational Administration,” UCEA Review, vol. 36, no. 2, spring, 1995.

56. For an introductory review of literature, see Benno Sander, Educación, Administración y Calidad de Vida, Buenos Aires, Ediciones Santillana, 1990.