"Integration through Education in Latin America: the case of Unila. Findings and

impressions of the first visit.”

Marcela Vitarelli Batista

PhD candidate at VUB- Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Department of Political Science

marcela.vitarelli.batista@vub.be

Aux Choux 47, box 15. 1000. Brussels, Belgium.

1

2

Abstract

Driven by globalization, higher education faces new challenges in regional integration and internationalization. In the search for standardization of higher education, but also of the creation of an integrated citizen identity, the most important South American economic block –the Mercosul- has created a sector called Educational Mercosul (SEM- Setor Educativo do Mercosul) in order to coordinate educational policies in Mercosul countries. Since 2006, the concept of “integration through education” has been established, which seeks to use education as a promoter of integrative consciousness, through the creation of common regional teaching and research environments. The current paper is part of a broader study that aims to investigate the role of higher education in the integration process in South America. It investigates the achievements of the Federal University of Latin America Integration (Unila) as an ambitious institution promoting integration in the region. The main purpose of this paper is to analyses data collected from the first exploratory field research developed in April 2016 in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Keywords: Education. Higher Education. Integration. Internationalization. Latin America. Regionalism

Introduction Driven by globalization, higher education faces new challenges in regional integration1 and internationalization. In many parts of the

1 Also known as Regionalism: “a state-led or states-led project designed to reorganise a particular regional space along defined economic and political lines”. (Payne and Gamble, quoted in Söderbaum 2001). Ernest Haas (1970) initially studied the concept: “I consider [integration] …a process for the creation of political communities defined in institutional and attitudinal terms.” Nye (1968) described the concept as "the formation of interstate associations or groupings on the basis of regions”.

3

world, higher education is seen as an instrument for the development of the knowledge-based economy. As such, policies, programs and practices of higher education have been increasingly co-opted and dimensioned by political-economic interests. In the last two decades, educational policies in the supranational sphere have gained in relative importance. These policies are seen as conditions of the economic and social development of the member countries of economic supranational institutions like the Mercosul2 (Mercado Comum do Sul in Portuguese) and the European Union (EU), but also the African Union, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), etc. In the EU, the multilateral Bologna Process3 influenced regional policies and programs to the degree that they became the reflection of the common foreign policy of the union, enhancing the educational exchange between different countries. In the search for standardization of higher education, but also of the creation of an integrated citizen identity, the most important South American economic block – the Mercosul – has created a sector called Educational Mercosul (SEM- Setor Educativo do Mercosul) in order to coordinate educational policies in Mercosul countries, just like in the EU.

In 2006, with the creation of SEM, conceptual changes occurred in the strategic perception of education for the Mercosur integration. The SEM Action Plan 2006-2010 presents the perspective of the necessity to go beyond the integration of education. The aims are either to integrate the educational structures of states or to expand the movement of teachers, students and also knowledge in the region. The concept was established as “integration through education”, which seeks to use education as a promoter of integrative consciousness, through the creation of common regional teaching and research environments.

2 Mercosur is the acronym in Spanish: Mercado Común del Sur. 3 European Higher Education Area (EHEA), better known as the Bologna Process.

4

Between 2006 and 2007, meetings of the Mercosul Ministers of Education to prepare the Eres project were extended successive times. Consequently, the Brazilian government, with logistical support from Itaipu Binacional4, decided in May 2007 to create the Mercosul Institute of Advanced Studies (IMEA). This Brazilian institute was dedicated to the expansion of exchange between the Mercosul countries’ higher education institutions. It is important to point out that the IMEA was created by a resolution from the University Council from the Federal University of Parana (UFPR). The Ministry of Education designated this university as Unila’s tutor institution.

After successful negotiation with Itaipu Binacional, the Ministry of Education developed the Explanatory Memorandum Interministerial No. 00331/2007, which established the creation of a Brazilian federal university geared towards integration, called the Federal University of Latin American Integration (Unila). Unila was structured by an Implementation Commission5, formed by the proposed creation of IMEA, in partnership with the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) and Itaipu Binational (Brackmann, 2010).

In January 2010, President Lula da Silva sanctioned the Law No. 12.189/10 creating the Unila (Almeida, 2015; Brackmann, 2010). As an institution of higher education, Unila was established to be a producer and dissipater of knowledge, forming both citizens and professionals. Unila was also formed to be an area for critical reflection of Latin American societies. As an institution of 4 Itaipu Binacional is a company that administers the hydroelectric dam on the Paraná River, located on the border between Brazil and Paraguay. An important diplomatic settlement was reached with the signing of the “Acordo Tripartite” by Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina, in 1979. This agreement established the allowed river levels and how much they could change as a result of the various hydroelectrically undertakings in the watershed that was shared by the three countries.5 13 education experts from different Latin-American countries composed the Implementation Commission.

5

integrationist inclination, it sought to bring innovations in all processes, including the method of student’s admission processes, the teacher hiring process, student social assistance, and academic exchange.

The Unila goal is to be a university whose mission will be to contribute to Latin American integration, with an emphasis on Mercosur, through humanistic, scientific and technological knowledge and partnership between universities, government and international organizations. Among Unila’s features the student selection process stands out, because 50% of the available vacancies are reserved for foreign students. The same applies to the professors’ selection. Additionally, the classes are taught in Spanish and Portuguese. The courses offered are preferably in areas of mutual interest for the Latin American countries, particularly the Mercosur members. With this appeal, Unila has attracted a great deal of interest in the Latin American academic community since its inception (IMEA 2009; Brackmann 2010; Motter and Gadin, 2016).

Still, why is Unila so important? Historically, Latin American higher educational institutions are associated with the process of state formation and the construction of national identity. In the case of Brazil, universities were developed much later than those of neighbouring countries. Likewise, Unila represents the importance that Brazil has given to the integration of Latin America as a condition to promote itself as a regional leader and a ‘global player’. Not surprisingly, one of the first challenges that Unila had to face was convincing the neighbouring countries that Brazil has no intention to exercise regional hegemony.

The methodology used is exploratory research, since this method “is the first step of a broader research”. (Gil, 1999:49). Data was collected by literature research, document analysis, and observations of facts and phenomena. Also, specific semi-structured interviews

6

with academic personnel, management and students were undertaken.

This paper has the general purpose of describing data collected from the first visit developed in April 2016 in Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. It is part of a significant research study that analyzes the role of education in the integration process in South America, precisely the Mercosur countries, in the last decade. The final contribution is to gather new data from university stakeholders in order to assess the achievements of the Unila as an ambitious institution promoting integration in the region.

Regional Integration

1.1- The recent debate of Regionalism

The study of regionalism6 began, for the most part, with a Eurocentric vision. The European Union inspired the initial debates. The new regionalism approach is much more global in its scope and more pluralistic (Söderbaum, 2003) than this focus would suggest. Since the 1980s, when significant regional integration7 projects took shape outside the EU, the subsequent literature on Regionalism has embraced the concept of ‘new regionalism’ (NR) to reflect regional transformations in an increasingly globalized world. NR is strongly related to globalization, being an integral part of it, or a political reaction against that process. Especially in the post-bipolar world of the 1990s, regionalism has been reinforced by the challenges to both

6 Andrew Hurrell (1995) considers five varieties of the Regionalism concept: informal integration, identity, interstate cooperation, state-led integration and cohesion. According to Hettne, Regionalism refers to: “a tendency and a political commitment to organize the world in terms of regions. The concept refers to a specific regional project.” (Hettne, 2005: 545).

7 Here we are looking for the concept of integration in a political sense, as a wider concept. According to Ilievski (2015), there are four fundamental Integration conditions: establishing a unified law frame; creating common institutions; developing a decision-making center; and, projecting identity.

7

assumptions and action constituted by the September 11 syndrome (Söderbaum, 2003).

As an approach, New Regionalism has captured the intellectual imagination of scholars concerned with regionalism beyond neofunctionalist8 understandings of integration based on EU studies (Rosamond and Warleigh-Lack, 2010; Hettne, 2005). In many ways, the close relationship between regionalism and the extra-regional environment (globalization) constitutes a break with neofunctionalism, which tend to ignore the external world (Söderbaum, 2003).

The NR, according to Hettne (2005), must be seen as a new political landscape in the making, characterised by interrelated dimensions, many actors (including the region itself) and several interacting levels of society. Besides the obvious exponential increase in regional agreements, what characterizes NR (as opposed to the ‘old’ concept9), is the fact that the state is not the only actor pursuing the integration agenda (Motter & Gandin, 2016).

New regionalism – a range of formal/informal mid-level ‘triangular’ relations among not only states but also non-state actors, notably civil societies and private companies – is a central aspect of the ‘new’ inter- or transnational relations (Söderbaum, 2003).

An understanding that state actors are but one set of key agents among potentially many is at the heart of newer approaches (Breslin et al., 2002 in Motter & Gandin, 2016).

8 Neofunctionalism is a theory that anticipates the regional integration and its theoretical goal: achieving regional integration represented as establishing supranational institutions in certain sectors, with a specific method, the “incremental approach”. This theory signifies a “synthesis of the theoretical functionalism of David Mitrany and the pragmatist approach of governing of Jean Monnet” (Majone, 2009: 112; Mansour, 2011 in Ilievski, 2015).9 For the principal differences between Old Regionalism and New Regionalism, check the comparative table in the Appendices.

8

For many scholars in the field, NR can be differentiated from its predecessor in several ways. Andrew Hurrell (1995: 332) lists five major distinguishing factors. First, NR is very diverse in its nature, including a variety of structures, processes and models rather than the single norm advocated by neofunctionalists. The NR is characterized by its multidimensionality, complexity, fluidity and non-conformity. According to Söderbaum, it is therefore now appropriate to speak of regionalisms in the plural rather than the singular (Söderbaum, 2003). Second, it can involve cooperation between states in the ‘North’ (developed countries) and the ‘South’ (developing countries). Previous Regionalism just considered relations North-North and South-South. Third, NR considers different levels of institutionalisation in several regions, whereas the OR considers a lack of joint institutions as a sign of weakness. Fourth, NR is multi-dimensional and blurs the distinction between the economic and the political. According to Hettne (2005), besides the globalized context, this multidimensional, multifactor and multilevel character – or, in short, complexity – was what distinguished the NR. Fifth, NR requires the development of a regional sense of Identity.

The NR approach offers a valuable model to analyse the case of Mercosul and, consequently, Unila, since it takes into consideration not only an economic view, but also cultural, political and social dimensions. It is a south-south cooperation considering different levels of institutionalisation. Also, NR avoids a simplistic notion of globalization and localization. It understands regionalism as an endogenous and exogenous phenomenon involving contradictory global transformations. This is vital to understanding UNILA’s approach to dealing with regional integration as a means of building and sharing new knowledge and epistemologies. Indeed, universities are crucial for alternative regional integration. Universities can be a place where a multiplicity of knowledge dialogues with each other, and can therefore act as enablers for real authentic democratic

9

integration. What follows is a description of how the literature about regionalism in Latin America was constructed. That helps to understand the Mercosul and the position of Unila as a promoter of integration in the region.

1.2- Regionalism in Latin America Post-liberal /Post-hegemonic

Despite some criticism, Latin America’s approach towards regionalism is not only a result of national interests, functional factors, or rational preferences. Latin American regionalism takes root in the identity and values that have traditionally defined politics throughout the region (Sanahuja, 2012). FLACSO Argentina (Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences) researchers demonstrate that ideas about Latin American regionalism have a long history, either as an expression of autonomy or as a means of resistance from the interventions of great powers.

The regional political discourse has been a traditional component since the independences’ wars of Latin America. One of the most important symbols was Simón Bolívar, the Venezuelan liberator. In the past decade, he has been invoked as an important symbol of identity for the populist governments in Latin America. In his messages to the Congresses of Angostura (1819) and Panama (1826), he put forward his vision for the construction of a sort of United States of Hispanoamérica, which can be considered to be the first attempts at continental integration.

Nevertheless, according to Sanahuja, the ideal image of the “patria grande” (the great homeland) has a difficult relationship with the strong nationalism that arose during the post-independence nation building process and is still present in the identity and culture in the region. Nationalism was the foundational discourse used by the new post-colonial elites to legitimize the states and dominate the indigenous and the afro-descents. Also, this was a recurrent debate

10

between liberals and conservatives, fracturing the republics since their beginnings. Sanahuja describes an irresolvable paradox: on the one hand, nationalism and the defense of sovereignty have been obstacles in the attempt to construct strong regional organizations; on the other, the defense of sovereignty has also been a mobilizing factor against imperialism and foreign domination.

It is important to mention that Bolívar faced international challenges: on the one side, he gained independence in relation to Spain and Europe; and on the other side, he faced complex relations with North America and the dangers of the Manifest Destiny, which had already been processed in 1823 with the Monroe doctrine (Nuñez, 2016). Sanahuja (2012) identifies the ambivalent relationship between Latin America and the US, stating that, “as a force of both attraction and rejection, the US has been a key referent for the formation of Latin America”. The author highlights this evidence when examining the multilateral organizations in the region since the end of the 19th century. The “Inter American system” was the institutional framework created after the Washington Conference in 1889-90, as part of the “Pan-American movement”. In terms of attraction, the establishment of US hegemony in the region was the context in which Latin America formed its international identity and defined a particular vision for foreign policy. In terms of rejection, US interventionism in the Inter American System resulted in significant contributions to international law, such as the principle of non-intervention and the Inter American system of human rights.

In his provocative paper, Andrés Malamud (2010) describes how integration theory first arrived in Latin America: “rather impulsively and unexpectedly, but early on and under the leadership of one of its founding fathers — and his would-be heir”. According to Malamud, Philippe C. Schmitter arrived in Berkeley in 1961, where he was unexpectedly offered a job as Ernst Haas’s research assistant. Haas wanted to apply neofunctionalism to the recently formed Central

11

American Common Market (CACM) and the Latin American Free Trade Area (LAFTA), which Schmitter did not even know existed (Haas et al. 2008, 1–2 in Malamud, 2010). In parallel to Hass, Raúl Prebish (Argentinean economist) published the book The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems in 1950, which became the inspiration for the integration projects that were launched in the following three decades. Hass and Prebisch became the pioneers of modern Latin American integration (Malamud, 2010).

According to Deciancio (2016), the idea of a XIX century federation of states was transformed into a new concept of regionalism: economic regional development. The UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) promoted the construction of a new economic world order based on: coordination in United Nations forums and other international organizations, political alliances, and economic development strategies. At the same time, the creation of the European Community could be perceived a threat to Latin America’s economy, but also an inspiration. It is important to mention that while the European theory of regional integration has its roots in the social sciences, Latin America integration theory has its roots in political economy.

It is believed that regional integration in Latin America is a distinct procedure when compared with processes that took or are taking place in Europe or Asia, and therefore should be analyzed with other methodological tools (Almeida, 2015; Sarti, 2015). The EU remains emblematic as a post-war long-term case of integration, whose lessons have turned out to be valuable tools for comparative analysis. However a theoretical approach to any integration case needs to be routed in the historical context of each case. Likewise, a theoretical framework should focus on the goals and values that define South American integration, because this is the proper way to evaluate their difficulties and obstacles (Sarti, 2015).

12

Since one single theory cannot give a sufficient picture of the multiplicity of new regionalism, we necessarily have to recognize and embrace a variety of theories. This is what makes the theoretical world of new regionalism so rich (Söderbaum, 2003).

Documents such as the Declaration of Iguaçu (1985)10 indicated that the integrationist arrangements in the region have as a crucial objective an autonomous and interdependent insertion into the international system. Therefore, the South American regional integration should not be treated just as a technical subject restricted to macroeconomic purposes. It is a political process influenced by regional and international power disputes, as well as by changes of government in the member states. In other words, South America integration is part of a geopolitical and historical process (Almeida, 2015; Bandeira, 2008; Sarti, 2015).

Regarding international power disputes, a large and growing body of literature has investigated the rise of regionalism in Latin America as a post-hegemonic process. Riggiozzi and Tussie (2012) published an extensive book providing in-depth analysis of the regionalism in Latin America. According to them:

…the vacuum created by Washington’s detachment also offers new opportunities for a fresh look at the increasingly rich and ambivalent relationships spanning the continent (Riggiozzi and Tussie, 2012: 11).

Latin America is experiencing a move away from the neoliberal project as well as the hegemonic project envisaged by the United States regionally through the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the

10 The Asunción Treaty signed by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in 1991 established the Southern Common Market (Mercosul, Portuguese acronym). Mercosul’s origin goes back further to 1983-1985, when Argentina inaugurated a democratic regime after seven years of brutal dictatorship and Brazil was in the midst of its transition. This historical bilateral approximation was concreted in December 1985 when both countries held a summit on the triple border -Declaração de Iguaçu (in Portuguese), in Foz do Iguaçu.

13

Americas) and bilaterally through market access and financial support. Likewise, the authors argue that the contours of the regional arena are being defined by formal and informal trans-boundary practices that denote a rich variety of forms of regionalism(s) that are moving beyond the issue of trade and finance, contesting the wisdom of neoliberal, market-led integration, and relocating the focus of regionalism as an extension of domestic rather than global politics.

Once it is considered that the acknowledgement of deep asymmetrical international relations, as well as of internal social inequalities, is a departure point for the integration South American concept in the 21st century, it cannot be mistakenly understood as merely a modernization process, nor just a hegemonic power dispute. This integration perspective concerns the struggle against poverty and inequality and is driven by the need to achieve a social, economic, cultural and sustainable development based on justice and democratic values and institutions. The developmental experience framed by the aims of an autonomous foreign policy and social inclusion has led to a new perspective towards achievements in different areas such as education, science and technology, and civil rights (Sarti, 2015).

Domestically, changes of government have also influenced the integration process in the region. Under the guidance of progressive governments elected in representative consolidated democracies, foreign policy has promoted the new model sought to build a new identity to the Mercosur. Policies were also implemented to consolidate a new democratic, social, political, economic, and cultural pattern. Remarkable policies were achieved in different areas, such as education, family farming, immigration, human rights, and social development.

Presidential diplomacy has a cultural and political presence and is an important modus operandi in the decision-making in the continent.

14

Nevertheless, it is a matter of concern that a political and presidentialist nature may reveal a conceptual fragility in the medium-term. This fragility lies in the dependence upon electoral outcomes within the context of the highly ideological disputes that prevail in the continent's democracies. Social participation in the integration decision making process remains an important claim to increasing democracy in the continent (Sarti, 2015).

In the 1990s, the NR in Latin America conformed broadly with a model of “Open Regionalism” (OR), predicated on a perception of the merits of unilateral trade liberalization for increased and more effective participation in the global economy. At the same time, it aimed to reinforce their internal governance capacities, looking for the best position in the changing international system in the post-Cold War era. It aimed to combine regional preference with extra-regional openness. OR continued until mid-2000 when leftist governments arose in the region and opened up an intense debate over the interests, rationale and objectives behind regional integration (Phillips, 2003; Malamud, 2010; Sanahuja, 2012).

If New Regionalism is the answer to the political and security challenges of the post-Cold War era, Open Regionalism could be considered as the answer to the demands of the increasingly noticeable dynamics of economic regionalization and globalization. OR aligned regional economic integration with liberal policies of the called “Washington Consensus” (Sanahuja, 2012: 3).

Mercosul’s founding treaties did not mention any political objective. It was originally established as an economic bloc only. Article 1 of the Asunción Treaty states that Mercosul will constitute a common market with a common external tariff, in which macroeconomic and sectoral policies will be co-ordinated, and national laws harmonised. Despite this agenda, these economic goals have not been fully achieved. The word democracy does not appear in the Asunción

15

Treaty nor in the Ouro Preto Protocol11 signed on December 17, 1994. A coup attempt in Paraguay on April 22, 1996 challenged the regional integration process. This event allowed Mercosur to upgrade its political dimension, resulting in the Presidential Declaration on Democratic Commitment on June 25, 1996, in San Luis (Argentina), and later, the Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment on July 24, 1998 (Dabène, 2009; Desiderá, 2016).

Gradually, the Mercosul developed a political character, mirroring other major regional integration projects, such as the European Union. The Political Declaration of Mercosur (1999) established the Bolivia and Chile area as a zone of peace. Later, in 2003, the Buenos Aires Consensus sought to re-launch the regional Mercosur project by giving it an explicit social and political dimension, which was followed by the creation of a number of institutions (Desiderá, 2016).

Mercosul performances have been highly pro-cycle, as could be seen in the “twin crisis” in 1999 and 2001-2002. Several causes have been attributed to explain this undesirable evolution of Mercosul: lack of economic complementarities; lack of logistic infrastructure; unilateral measures; macroeconomic instability; the effect of non-tariff barriers; and the dependence on commodities exportation, especially because of the important growth of this trade to Asia (Sanahuja, 2012).

After the “twin crisis”, the main political actors realized that the integration process required some adjustments. In addition to this

11 The Protocol recognizes the legal personality of the bloc's international law, giving it power to negotiate, in its own name, agreements with third countries, groups of countries and international organizations. The Mercosul Associated states are Bolivia (in the process of joining MERCOSUR), Chile (since 1996), Peru

(since 2003), and Colombia and Ecuador (since 2004). Guyana and Suriname became Associate States in 2013. All South American countries are part of Mercosul, either as states parties or as associates.

16

perception, the region experienced a major political shift. Luis Inácio Lula da Silva was elected in Brazil in 2002 and Nestor Kirchner in Argentina in 2003. This turn to the left brought new leaders to power that were intensely committed to the deepening of integration. The "Consensus of Buenos Aires" was the point at which criticism came to the fore and a rupture from the previous phase occurred (Camargo, 2006; Dabène, 2009; Perrotta, 2010). The meeting held on October 13, 2013 in the city of Buenos Aires (Argentina) resulted in a twenty-two-point document illustrating the type of regional integration expected for Mercosur. Among the points outlined, we can highlight the need to:

Recognize that the common aspiration for development implies giving absolute priority to education as a tool for social inclusion, while its integrative and equalizing capacity has not been surpassed by any other social policy; affirm their willingness to redouble efforts for universities and institutes of science and technology to multiply and strengthen their links, in order to generate a regional technological pole that deepens basic and applied research, with criteria of sustainability and social equity; recognize the situation of asymmetries, imbalances and inequalities, proposing, then, to implement regional development policies that contemplate and respect the diversity of the territory; and, ratify a deep conviction that Mercosur is not only a commercial bloc, but also constitutes a catalyst for values, traditions and a shared future (Perrotta, 2010).

In this new phase of Mercosur, national political aspirations coincided with the regional orientations. The new regionalism becomes an ally for national states, because the new development model proposed by Mercosur countries includes benefits for a greater number of actors who were neglected before: students, teachers and researchers.

What follows is a description of the higher educational system in Latin America. This sector was directly affected by these political changes in the Mercosul countries mentioned above.

17

Higher Education in Latin America

In contemporary societies, terms like “higher education” or “tertiary education” are used instead of “university”, to account for the fact that “universities” in the traditional sense of the word are just one part of a much broader educational sector. In most countries, there are different types of institutions, funded differently, and catering to different segments of the population.

A historical view is fundamental to describing the origin and development of the HE in several countries. The currently situation in each Latin American country is strongly related with the past. In political science literature, this phenomenon is called denominated “path dependency”. According to Pierson (2004), historical facts, relevant to a certain period of time, can determine variations on the outcomes that unfolded. Pierson explains how initial environmental conditions leave a persistent mark (or imprint) on organizations and organizational collectives (institutions), thus continuing to shape organizational behaviors and outcomes in the long run, even as external environmental conditions change. It is necessary recognize the past, understand it, but try, as much as possible, not to be dependent on. A historical perspective is necessary, because, without it, it is impossible to understand why institutions are what they are, and how they can eventually be changed.

The first universities originated in the priests’ formation of the Catholic Church in the medieval Europe. In other societies and civilizations, like the Platoon academy or Chinese centers of bureaucratic formations, also had high culture institutions. However, the Europeans institutions organized themselves and created more autonomy. Completely disassociated with the church, they were controlled by the students or by professor’s corporations, as seen in the British colleges or Paris University. By the end of 18th century, the universities had transformed deeply (For a history of Europeans universities, see Clark and Neave, 1992).

18

University institutions specialized in activities related to knowledge and looked to gain autonomy while at the same time convincing other sectors of their importance. They were not revolutionary institutions that attempt to break the established order, but they were frequently reformist in nature. They created new spaces with the objective of substituting the predominant intellectual and moral dogma and the traditional authority. The Illuminist tradition of valorization of competence, knowledge and freedom to research and communicate ideas and values were important for universities in the past and in the present (Schwartzman, 2014).

The first Latin American university was founded in 1538, only 45 years after the arrival of Christopher Columbus in Santo Domingo. Universities were established in 1540 in Mexico, in 1551 in San Marcos, Peru, and in 1613 in Cordoba, Argentina (Mollis, 2007). In contrast, Portuguese colonizers did not consider Brazil as a place to live but one to explore. So, they did not create any educational institutions. Instead, the Brazilian elite used to travel to Portugal to study. Later, in 1808 with the Napoleon invasion, the Portuguese court was transferred to Brazil. Because of this, the first educational institutions on Brazilian soil were created. Organized similarly to the French models, the Royal Military Academy of Rio de Janeiro, Medical Schools in Bahia and later Law Schools in Recife and São Paulo were established (Schwartzman, 2014). According to Mollis (2007) the first Brazilian university, Lavras, Minas Gerais, was founded in 1908.

The University Reform of Córdoba (Argentina) in 1918 was an important point in Latin America’s HE history. The movement of the university reform occurred in several other countries of the continent (Uruguay, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Bolivia, Puerto Rico, Ecuador and also, Central America), but it was the mobilization of the students of Córdoba that symbolized the movement. The Reform documents and statements

19

indicated the condemnation of poor quality of teaching and expressed the idea that just through student’s direct intervention could be achieved. Although several controversies and problems, the reform increase universities self-regulation and autonomy. Likewise, it generated huge national universities like the Universidad Nacional de México (UNAM) and the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA). Unlike the rest of the continent, Brazil never created a national university. In addition, Brazilian institutions always selected students through evidence of knowledge demonstrated in a national exam.

The expansion of higher education in Latin America in the second half of the 20th century was associated with broad expectations that jobs would be created to accommodate a growing number of graduates moving up the social ladder and being absorbed by large and permissive higher education institutions. However, access to the few higher education institutions in Latin America was limited to the children of the richest and most educated in each country (Schwartzman, 2002).

Although the Latin American countries are similar in languages and religion, they have many differences—such as population, ethnic composition, GNP per capita and comparative inequality in income distribution. While recognizing the different context of each country in the region, there is a common pattern of educational enrollment expansion in Latin America, from the second half of the 20th century to the present. In 1950, there were 105 universities in Latin America, and by the 1990s there were over 700 among more than 2,500 institutions of higher learning, including teacher colleges, technical institutes and junior colleges. The international agenda for the transformation of higher education in the region was also put into practice through the establishment of national institutions for the accreditation and evaluation of universities. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have placed priority on evaluation systems. MERCOSUR is

20

pressing for accreditation models as the best means for facilitating academic interchange (Mollis, 2007).

In 1968 there was further university reform. Brazil adopted a North American model of educational organization, including “research universities” focusing on post-graduation and research, organized into departments, with doctorate professors hired full time. This model worked well in some cases, but raised the cost significantly per student (Schwartzman, 2014). These developments left the public system unable to absorb the higher education demand in the country. The entrance examinations are more and more competitive, aggravating the situation. This has made room for private sector growth, which now accounts for about 75% of the supply of higher education. While in the rest of the AL, private education remained small and elite; in Brazil, it became massive, but with dubious quality and almost no research and graduate activity.

Internationalization of Higher Education

Internationalization of Higher Education (IoHE) is a relatively new phenomenon, but as a concept, it is one that is both broad and varied. IoHE is a polysemic term that means different things to different the people and it thus used in a variety of ways. Therefore, many programs and activities have been related to IoHE: academic mobility for students, professors and staff; international projects, partnerships and linkages; new academic programs and research initiatives; and delivery of education to other countries, through branch campuses or franchises, using a variety of distance and face-to-face techniques (Knight, 2004; Rodríguez-Bulnes et al., 2016).

A large and growing body of literature has contributed to the evolution of the term internationalization. De Wit (2002), Arum and Van de Water (1992), Van der Wende (1997), and Soderqvist (2002) made important contributions to the debate. In 2004, however, Jane Knight updated the definition and her work is the most commonly

21

accepted (Knight, 2004; De Wit et al., 2015). According to Knight, internationalization at the national/sector/institutional levels is defined as:

The process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.12

The international activities of universities dramatically expanded in volume, scope, and complexity during recent decades. There has been an intense internationalization of the education dynamic, institutions, students, programs, curriculums and professors. The IoHE is a consequence of the natural demands of a globalized world. Markets have been integrated from international trade agreements, seeking effective productivity. In this new productive system, the workers must adapt to new necessities. Likewise, the education institutions must adapt to this new global system and guarantee a humanistic education that prepares students and professors to respect different cultures and nations. In analysing, understanding and visualizing the IoHE phenomenon’s impacts, it is necessary to guarantee improvement in academic strategies.

According to UNESCO (2004 in Rodríguez-Bulnes et al., 2016), the definition of IoHE is: a process of essential institutional transformation with the objective of the incorporatio of international and intercultural dimensions in the institutions. In this way, IoHE’s 12 The author explained the choice of each term: process denotes that the evolutionary and or developmental quality of the concept is an ongoing and continuing effort; International in the sense of a relationship among nations; Intercultural is used to address the aspects of internationalization at home; Global is used to provide the sense of the worldwide scope; Purpose refers to the mission or mandate of the higher educational institution; Function includes teaching/training, research and scholarly activities, and service to the society; and Delivery refers to the offering of educational courses domestically or in other countries (Knight, 2004).

22

ideas and values become inseparable from the institution’s identity and culture. Also, IoHE includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions—and even individuals—to cope with the global academic environment.

Some authors explain the necessity, in a globalized environment, of institutional changes through strategies designed to include programs and activities to internationalize teaching, researching and academic extension. The results of globalization in education can be seen in important and irreversible characteristics in the field. According to Altbach and Knight (2007) the results of globalization include:

…the integration of research, the use of English as the lingua franca for scientific communication, the growing international labor market for scholars and scientists, the growth of communications firms and of multinational and technology publishing, and the use of information technology (IT). IT facilitates communication; permits efficient storage, selection, and dissemination of knowledge; and allows providers to offer academic programs through e-learning (Altbach and Knight, 2007: 291).

Knight (2004) identifies the importance of internationalization on two levels: the national/sector level and the institutional level. The first includes policies related to: foreign relations, development assistance, trade, immigration, employment, science and technology, culture and heritage, education, social development, industry and commerce, and others. In the educational sector, all the policies that relate to the purpose, licensing, accreditation, funding, curriculum, teaching, research, and regulation of postsecondary education are included. At the institutional level, Knight includes references related to the international dimension of the institution’s mission, purpose, values, and functions. A broader interpretation could include the institutional mission statement or policies on study abroad, student recruitment, international linkages and

23

partnerships, cross-border delivery, international sabbaticals, and those statements, directives, or planning documents that address implications for or from internationalization.

According to Van der Wend (1996), there are three types of internationalization: Regular, in which institutions receive foreign students and send home students abroad; Transversal, which refers to interinstitutional relations; and, Home, which covers curriculum exchange, receiving foreigners in conferences, chair and videoconferences.

The rationales driving internationalization include many opportunities to improve the educational practices and, in doing so, advantages to the countries participating. According to Knight (2004), rationales can be divided in four groups: social/cultural, political, academic, and economic. For example, IoHE can bring commercial and financial advantages on many institutional and personal levels. It promotes knowledge and language acquisition, enhancing the curriculum with international content. Adjusting and adapting the institutions to achieve international criteria can promote a more independent and competitive student body and staff. Higher education then becomes a mechanism by which the future economic, technological, and cultural development of any country can be inverted. International associations and networks are important results of the internationalization process (Knight, 2004; Altbach and Knight, 2007; Rodríguez-Bulnes et al., 2016).

There are many factors that influence the institutional-level rationales of IoHE. These factors range from mission, student population, faculty profile, geographic location, funding sources, level of resources, and orientation to local, national, and international interests (Knight, 2004). These facts are crucial in comparing and understanding the position of Unila as an internationalized institution.

24

2.1- Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America

In Latin America, although the internationalization of higher education has been promoted to a certain level, there is still a long way to go. Historically, the interaction with other higher educational institutes (HEI) started in the 1980s. Before that, in the 50s and 60s, the pattern of interaction was that high social class students brought their knowledge and European bibliography to Latin American countries. Later, in the 70s, developed countries offered scholarships to train high-level human resources. It was only in the 80s and 90s that the first exchange offices included public and private HEI.

Nowadays, the data shows there are only a small percentage of international students in Latin America: just 1.9% of the total number of students. This is compared to 2.5% in Africa, 6.14% in Central and Eastern Europe, 9% in the Asia -Pacific, 21% in North America and 58% in Western Europe. In addition, in the third survey of the International Association of Universities, only 51% of HEIs in Latin America indicated that internationalization is highly important, in contrast to 71% of European ones (UNESCO, 2012).

In Southern Cone, Mercosul is a project of the political-economic bloc that also promotes cultural and educational integration through the internationalization of higher education programs. This has occurred particularly after the signing of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats) by member states of the bloc, which included education as a commercialized activity.

Through these debates inside the Mercosul Educational Sector, the proposal of a Mercosur university was elaborated and consequently led to the creation of Unila.

2.2- MERCOSUL’s Educational Sector

25

After eight months of the Asunción Treaty signature (13th December 1991), the Mercosul’s Educational Sector (aka SEM) was created. Also called Educational Mercosul, it was formalized by the Protocol of Intentions signed by the Educational Ministers from all the member states. After that was developed, “Action Plans” have been implemented over the last two decades (1992/1994-199813, 1998-2000, 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-201514). The Protocol of Intentions affirms that education has a strategic role in the integration process and consequently will assist in consolidating the economic, cultural, scientific- technologic and social development of the region (Andrés, 2010). SEM relies on the idea that regional integration should also cover cultural, social and educational initiatives. Consequently, despite the eventual critics, SEM has consolidated a solid institutional framework upon which to fulfill the goals of educational integration (Pinheiro and Bershara, 2011; Perrotta, 2013).

The SEM’s general goal is the construction of an integrated educational space, through the coordination of educational politics, promoting the mobility, the exchange and the generation of the regional identity.

(...) que da educação depende, em grande parte, a capacidade dos povos latino-americanos de se reencontrarem nos valores comuns e na afirmação de sua identidade frente aos desafios do mundo contemporâneo (Protocol of Intentions, 1991).

13 The 1st Plan was designed to be implemented between 1992 and 1994, but was extended until June 1998 due to changes introduced in the institutional structure of MERCOSUR, by the Treaty of Ouro Preto.14 Regarding the process of regionalization and integration of Higher Education, the first two Plans refer to the creation of the Regional Common Space for Higher Education. However, since the Third Triennial Plan (2001-2005), the ministers of education and the Commission of Regional Coordination for Higher Education linked to them, started to use the expression “Common Educational Space”, highlighting the articulated coordination of education policies to all levels of education.

26

Likewise, the aim of SEM is to qualify the regional work force to improve the bloc’s international competitiveness. Overall, through its commitment to this double orientation – material gains and regional identity – SEM has demonstrated the interaction and complementarity of these two main goals (Pinheiro and Bershara, 2011).

According to Perrotta (2013), it is possible to recognize at least three phases in the history of SEM: the first (1991-2001) aimed to build SEM’s institutional structure “bonds of trust among the governments officials through the exchange of information about the characteristics of national educational systems and creating common indicators to obtain comparable information”.

It was during the second phase (2001-2008) that the first regional programs started to be implemented. The Action Plan 2006-2010 reaffirmed the belief signed on in the Protocol of Intentions: that the Mercosul should not just focus on economic matters. As Perrotta (2013) explained, the greatest political achievements of this period were the establishment of protocols for the recognition of qualifications (for academic purposes) and the implementation of the first regional policy, which involved the experimental mechanism for the accreditation of undergraduate university degrees in MERCOSUR, Bolivia and Chile (MEXA). The first regional policy, MEXA, was an experimental mechanism for the accreditation of degree courses in Mercosul between 2002 and 2006 and became, in mid-2008, a permanent system: the System of Accreditation of university degrees for regional recognition of academic quality within Mercosul and Associated States, ARCU-SUL. As a result of MEXA, the first student mobility program – MARCA15 – for courses authorized by MEXA, was launched. In 2006, 57 students participated, and later up to 985 places were made available. Also, 15 After ARCU-SUL was implemented, the program MARCA continued, but now under a new name: the regional academic mobility program for accredited courses under the accreditation system of university degrees in Mercosul and Associated States (Perrotta, 2013).

27

within this period, a regional fund started to be negotiated, MERCOSUR´s Educational Fund, FEM (Perrotta, 2013).

The third period of SEM was from 2011 until 2016, as a result of the modification of the institutional structure and the implementation of regional policies in various areas of action. Mobility programs for teachers from courses that have been accredited by ARCU-SUL and also courses from Social Sciences were included in this implementation phase. The principal areas are elementary and higher education; special programs regarding human rights; a Youth Parliament, etc. A new area for policy delivery was also created: teacher training (Perrotta, 2013).

In a recent doctoral thesis, Almeida (2015) argues that regional political context promoted conceptual changes in the Educational Mercosur, which surpassed the previous model of educational integration. Previously, the educational model was restricted to the integration of States’ educational structures. The main argument in this work is that education has become a path for promoting integration in the region. The Mercosur University project resulted in the creation of Unila as a Brazilian higher education institution, due to the institutional and financial difficulties of the bloc.

The Ministry of education of Brazil’s first proposed project was the creation of the University of Mercosul, which was not approved by all partners. It was argued that it was too early to create a transnational university in the region. Moreover, according to Carlos Augusto Moreira Junior, former rector of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), there was a “fear of a possible Brazilian imperialism” (Brackmann, 2010; Perrotta, 2014; Almeida, 2015).

Despite this, the Regional Area of the Mercosul of Higher Education (Eres- Espaço Regional de Educação Superior do Mercosul) was created. This teaching and research project in higher education had some important principles building bases for possible multinational

28

institutions. Those principles were: a) teaching and research oriented to regional integration topics; b) to be installed in many campus around different countries from Mercosul, or to be part of undergraduate and graduate programs from higher education institutions; c) to include selection processes that were available to all citizens from the Mercosul states, as teachers, students, researchers and administrators; d) offering courses of undergraduate and graduate programs linked to regional necessities and demands; and e) to be formed on the basis of academic mobility, incorporating previous advances (Almeida, 2015).

The creation of Mercosul's Regional Higher Education Area, inspired by the Bologna Process of the European Union, was established and concretized especially because of the Brazilian government efforts to create Unila and other educational initiatives directed toward the promotion of regional integration (Pinheiro and Bershara, 2011).

As of 2016, with the Brazilian political and economic crisis that resulted in Dilma Housseff’s impeachment, as well as the election of liberal Mauricio Macri in Argentina, all Mercosul activities are uncertain. It could be the beginning of a new period for Mercosul

and consequently SEM.

First Visit Unila

In this article, we proposed to present an exploratory analysis as a methodological tool. Nevertheless, since this is a work in progress, we have other steps planned. First, a focus group will be conducted with students in order to improve our assumptions. Secondly, an online questionnaire will be developed. It will be a crucial method for gathering new data from the student’s perspectives. And finally, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with teachers and relevant staff in the institutions. It is important to mention that some of these interviews have already been held successfully. Despite this structured method, we also aim to receive further suggestions at this

29

conference on how to proceed with the data collection for the second visit and the fieldwork. Here are some considerations about the visits.

The first visit to Unila was held in April 2016. Informal visits and semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, students, staff and even residents. Likewise, we sought contact with the pro-rectors of International Relations especially, aiming to analyze the internationalization programs of the institution involving: cooperation agreements; mobility programs; and joint research programs. These will be analysed across several aspects: geography and location; courses; history of the institution; and responses from professors.

The first aspect was the campus location and its strategic geography. Unila was installed in Foz do Iguaçu city, on the triple border shared by Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Foz do Iguaçu has a peculiar migration history. Characterized by a multiethnic and multicultural aspect, the city is populated with Brazilians from several regions, as well as Paraguayans and Argentineans. However, Foz’s population is also composed of Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean and Indian citizens. These last communities were attracted to migrate to Foz by the commercial facilities created by the establishment of a Free Zone in the city of Presidente Strossner (Ciudad del Este), on the Paraguayan side of the city.

Unila’s campus is in an area of 40 hectares and was donated by the Itaipu Binacional hydroelectric plant. This is a historic area of regional strategic interest. Authorization is required to enter, as well as photo credentials, and identification must be carried at all times inside the campus. It is one of the largest hydroelectric power plants in the world; therefore security is relevant and necessary. In terms of regional security, the campus is heavily guarded by the Brazilian armed forces.

30

Unila aims to be a mechanism of emancipation and recognition of cultural and regional identity, contributing to citizen inclusion. It has developed 121 extension actions that promote the participation of locals in workshops and cultural events.

Regarding Unila’s architecture, the internationally famous architect Oscar Niemeyer and his team designed the facilities. Unila is a young university, however, it is organized and clean. Not all buildings have been completed. Some members of the staff attribute the delay to the effects of the Brazilian crisis. However, the good quality of the installations and the symbolism concerning Latin America and its integration all over the campus is noticeable.

The courses given at Unila are in areas of mutual interest of countries in Latin America, especially the member countries of Mercosul, with an emphasis on themes involving exploitation of natural resources and cross-frontier biodiversity, regional social and linguistic studies, international relations, and other areas considered strategic for regional development and integration. The most distinctive feature of the Unila pedagogic project is the common cycle of studies. It is a group of compulsory basic courses that all students of Unila take in their first year. The disciplines are: foundations of Latin America; introduction to scientific thought; additional languages – Portuguese and Spanish. It aims to encourage critical thinking, bilingualism and a basic knowledge of the region. In 1960 the Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro criticized the Latin American model of higher institutions, claiming it was too distant from the region’s problems. Unila seeks to oppose this perspective, promoting dialogue among countries and valuing Latin American demands. Nowadays, there are 36 interdisciplinary research groups. The idea is to encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration, create Latin American wealth and diversity, increase interaction between knowledge areas, as well as research and extension activities.

31

The history of Unila, as cited in the introduction of this paper, can be seen as a Brazilian contribution to the regional space of Mercosul (IMEA, 2009:65). It creates an “open-air laboratory” to promote multiculturalism and the coexistence and exchange of experiences among students from different Latin American countries.

Three general questions were asked to professors at Unila: What is the profile of Unila students? Is Unila a place of reflection and knowledge production on Latin American integration? Is Unila a source of integration in Latin America? The Argentine professor Fernando Gabriel Romero from the International Relations and Integration course cited the social profile of Unila as being: low-income, indigenous students from rural areas. Karen Honório, a Brazilian professor of International Relations and Integration, emphasized that Unila is still very young and it has many structural problems to solve before becoming a source of theoretical academic production and reflection on Latin American integration. Other professors agreed that Unila is a possible source of integration, but is still limited. Unila was defined being particular and a “microclimate” correlated with integration.

Final Considerations

Higher education is effectively inserted in the process of regional integration as a strategic factor for the development and integration between countries and nations. Universities are crucial for alternative regional integration because they are means of building and sharing new knowledge and epistemologies. Despite this, not all higher educational institutions will be able to provide critical approaches.

The internationalization of higher education could offer strategic tools to promote academic integration, especially to those

32

institutions that do not have regional integration as their mission. However, positives results are localized in and limited to the local where the action is taken. Likewise, programs below Mercosul’s umbrella promoting “integration through education” could be a practicable alternative against constant economic and political crises in Latin America. However, budget problems and asymmetries inside the bloc could jeopardize programs and initiatives.

Finally, the planning of Unila has experienced difficulties and inconsistences. The first obstacle is to maintain the equal participation of teachers and students from Brazil and other Latin American countries. Unila has an extremely small number of non-Brazilian teachers and students. According to Motter and Gandin (2016), although the law that created Unila permits, and indeed encourages, the recruitment of teachers from various countries of the region, this legal statute has had little effect as it clashes with the general norms of Brazilian legislation that prevent contracting non-Brazilians. The second difficulty is to recruit and retain non-Brazilians students. In the first two years, due to the relatively small number of students and a generous budget for student welfare, it was possible to subsidize Brazilians and non-Brazilians alike. Nowadays, with this resource limited, it has become difficult to attract foreign students.

“Marcela Vitarelli Batista, 33, from Viçosa (Brazil), is a PhD candidate who received her Bachelor’s degree in “International Relations” at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais. In 2009, she obtained an MA in International Relations and Economy at the University of Barcelona and FLACSO Argentina. She wrote her Master’s Thesis on Latin American security policies, and currently studies at the VUB- Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Her interests include Regionalism, Integration, Education, Democracy, Development and Security studies.”

Bibliography33

Almeida, Larissa Rosevicsde (2015). O Mercosul Educacional e a criação da Unila no início do século: por uma integração regional via educação. Tese (Doutorado) – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Economia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Economia Política Internacional, 2015.

Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. 2007. “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities”. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3-4), pp. 290-305.

Balassa, Bella. (1961). The Theory of Economic Integration. Greenwood Press.

Bandeira, L. A. M. (2008). A importância geopolítica da América do Sul na estratégia dos Estados Unidos. Revista Espaço Acadêmico 89, outubro de 2008.

Brackmann, Maria Marta (2010). Internacionalização da Educação Superior e Política Externa Brasileira: estudo da criação da Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (Unila). Porto Alegre.

Camargo, Sônia de. (2006). Mercosul: crise de crescimento ou crise terminal? Lua Nova, São Paulo, 68: 57-90, 2006.

Clark, Burton R. and Neave, Guy R. (1992) The encyclopedia on higher education. Oxford, England. Pergamon Press.

4Dabène, Olivier (2009) Consistency and Resilience through cycles of repoliticization. In Riggiorozzi, P., Tussie, D. (eds,) (2012). The rise of post-hegemonic Regionalism. United Nation University Series on Regionalim.

Deciancio, Melisa (2016) El regionalismo latinoamericano en la agenda de la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales. Iberoamericana, XVI 91-110.

34

Desiderá, Neto Walter A (2016) The Evolution of Mercosur Behaving as an International Coalition, 1991-2012. Contexto Internacional Vol. 38(2) May/Aug 2016.

Deutsch, K W et al (1966) Integración y formación de comunidades políticas. Instituto para la integración de America Latina. BID.

De Wit, et al. (2015) Internationalization of Higher Education: Study. European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education.

Gil, A.C (1999). “Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social”. São Paulo: Atlas.

Haas, Ernst B. (1958) The Challenge of Regionalism. International Organization, Vol 12, No. 4 (Autumn, 1958), pp. 440-458.

Ibid., (1958a) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic forces (Stanford University Press.

Ibid., (1970). The study of Regional Integration: : reflections on the Joy and Anguish of pretherorizing. International Organization, vol. 24, Issue 04, September 1970, p.606-646.

Hettne, Björn (2005) Beyond the ‘New’ Regionalism. New Political Economy, Vol. 10, No. 4, December 2005.

Hurrell, A. (1995) Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World Politics. Review of International Studies, 21:331-58.

Instituto Mercosul de Estudos Avançados (IMEA) (2009). Comissão de Implantação da Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA). Consulta Internacional Contribuições à concepção, organização e proposta político-pedagógica da Unila. Foz do Iguaçú; IMEA.

Instituto Mercosul de Estudos Avançados (IMEA) (2009a), ‘A UNILA em Construção: um projeto universitário para a América latina’, Foz do Iguaçu: IMEA.

35

Ilievski, Nikola L. (2015) The concept of political integration: the perspectives of neofunctionalist theory. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs | Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015

Keohane, J and Nye J. S (eds) (1972). Transnational Relations and Worlds Politics. Harvard University press.

Knight, Jane (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal os Studies in International Education, Vol. 8 No. 1. Spring 2004 5-31.

Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

Malamud, Andrés (2010) Latin American Regionalism and EU Studies. European Integration Vol. 32, No. 6, 637–657, November 2010.

Mitrany, David. “The Funcionalist Alternative” in WILLIAMS, P.; GOLDSTEIN, D.M. e SHAFRITZ, J. M. (eds.) Classic readings of international relations. NewYork: Hartcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994.

Mollis, Marcela (2007) Latin American university transformation of the 1990s: altered identities? In James J.F. Forest and Philip G. Altbach (eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education, 503–515.

Motter, Paulino and Gandin, Luis Armando (2016). Higher Education in Latin America: the Unila project.

Nuñez, I. M. (2016) Culture as Social Capital for Development and Integration in Latin America. Contextualizaciones Latinoamericanas. Año 8, número especial, Mayo.

Payne A and Gamble A eds (1996). Regionalism and World Order. Macmillan.

36

Perrotta, Daniela. (2014). La Educación superior en el MERCOSUR Revista Perspectivas de Políticas Públicas Año 3 nº6 (Enero-Junio 2014).

------------- (2013). Mercosur Brand: regionalism and higher education.

Phillips, Niccola (2003) The rise and fall of open regionalism? Comparative reflections on regional governance in Southern Cone of Latin America. Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 2, pp 217-234.

Pierson, Paul (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press.

Pinheiro, L. and Beshara, G. (2011) Política Externa e educação: confluências e perspectivas no marco da integração regional. In “Política externa brasileira a política das práticas e as práticas da política”. Editora FGV.

Pozzo, Eloiza D and Nihei, Oscar K. (2016) A internacionalização da Educação Superior e a Unila sob a Ótica da Integração. Pleiade, 10(20): 52-60, Jul./Dez.,2016.

Queiroz, Fábio Albergaria (2012). Hydropolitics on Water governance at the Prata Basin- Between Conflict and cooperation (1960-1992). In New Security Frontiers: Critical Energy and the Resource Challenge. Global interdisciplinary studies series. Routledge.

Riggiorozzi, P., Tussie, D. (eds,) (2012). The rise of post-hegemonic Regionalism. United Nation University Series on Regionalim.

Rodríguez-Bulnes et al. (2016). La internacionalización de la Educación Superior. Caso UANL. Universidad del Zulia, Opción, Año 32, Especial No.13.

Rosamond, Ben (2000) Theories of European Integration. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

37

Rosamond, Ben and Warleigh-Lack, Alex (2010) Across the EU Studies–New Regionalism Frontier: Invitation to a Dialogue.

Santos, Celso Medina (2014) Integração Regional e Desenvolvimento: O Caso da Comunidade Econômica dos Estados da África Ocidental (CEDEAO). USP. São Paulo. http://www.iri.usp.br/

Sanahuja, José Antonio (2012) Post-liberal regionalism in South America: the case of Unasur. EUI working papers.

Sarti, Ingrid (2015). Theoretical and developmental challenges to contemporary South American integration. Accessed 10/25/2015.

http://brasilnomundo.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/052_Theoretical.and_.developmental.challenges.to_.contemporary.south_.american.integration_Ingrid.Sarti_.pdf

Schwartzman, Simon (2002). Higher Education and the Demands of the New Economy in Latin America. Background paper for the World Bank’s report on “Closing the Gap in Education and Technology”, Latin American and Caribbean Department, 2002.

Schwartzman, Simon (2014). A Educação Superior na América Latina e os desafios do século XXI. Editora Unicamp.

Söderbaum, F. (2003), ‘Introduction: theories of New Regionalism’, in F. Söderbaum and T.M. Shaw (eds), Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader, New York: Palgrave, pp. 1–21.

Trevisol, J.V. (2014). “Movimentos sociais e universidade popular no Brasil: a experiência de implantação da UFFS”. X ANPED SUL, Florianópolis, outubro de 2014.

UNESCO (2012). Global Education Digest 2012. Montréal: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.

38

Van der Wende, Marijk (1996). Internationalizing the Curriculum in Dutch Higher Education: an International comparative Perspective, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Appendices

1- Differences between old and new regionalisms

39

Old regionalism New regionalism(s)

Introverted, protectionist and exclusive

State-centric and state-dominated, especially within intergovernmental regional organizations

Specific and narrow objectives (mainly trade and security)

Influenced by Cold War logic and bipolarity;

often imposed by superpowers (‘hegemonic

regionalism’)

Extroverted, open and inclusive — closely

linked with globalization

Involves states, market and civil society actors

in a multitude of institutional forms

Comprehensive and multidimensional

objectives

Independent of superpowers — emerges from

internal regional dynamics (from within)

Source: Adapted from Söderbaum and Hettne (2005) in Gómes-Mera, 2008.

40