1ST Latin American Policy Forum

Latin America has become a place where effective and innovative policies have been born. Success stories have positioned countries like Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru in the spotlight of the global policy debate. To recognize this development, and to engage with particular accomplishments in the region, Latin American Matters (LAM) has convened the First Latin American Policy Forum: “Success Stories from Latin America.”

This year’s participants will include: Álvaro Uribe, Former President of Colombia; Cristián Larroulet, Secretary General of the Presidency of Chile; Josefina Vázquez Mota, Former Secretary of Social Development and Presidential Candidate of Mexico; Jaime Lerner, Mayor of Curitiba of Brazil, and other policy leaders.

In order to enhance debate, the conference will be divided into panels that will focus the following specific policy areas: Social Protection, Urban Development, Security, Energy and Trade. The forum will focus on these areas as it is these fields where we find the region’s most pressing concerns and accomplishments.

The conference will take place next May 9^th at the International House, and it will be open to the public.

The Latin American Policy Forum is organized by Latin American Matters (LAM), a student organization at the Harris School of Public Policy, which aims to improve the position of the University of Chicago in Latin America, and to bring the policy debate from Latin American to our university community.

RSVP HERE

What? First Latin American Policy Forum: “Success Stories from Latin America”

When? Thursday, May 9th, 2013 / 9.00am-5.00pm

Where? The International House. 1414 East 59th Street, Chicago.

Contact: Juan Mauricio Mora – LAM President jmauriciomora@uchicago.edu

AGENDA

9:00-10:30 Urban Development

• Jaime Lerner. Former Mayor of Curitiba, Brazil
• Richard Daley. Former Mayor of Chicago

10:30-12:00 Social Protection

• Gabriel Martínez. ICSS
• Josefina Vázquez Mota. Former Presidential Candidate of México

12:15 – 13:45 Keynote Speech

• Álvaro Uribe Vélez. Former President of Colombia
• David Axelrod. Former Advisor to President Obama   

2:00-3:30 Energy

• Juan Bueno Torio. Former Director of Pemex Refinery  
• Ramón Espinasa. Lead Oil and Gas Specialist of IDB
• Antonio Fernández-Montes. Director of Global Markets of REPSOL    

3:30-5:00 Trade

• Bruno Ferrari. Former Secretary of Commerce of México
• Cristián Larroulet. Secretary General of the Presidency of Chile
• Ricardo López Murphy. Former Presidential Candidate of Argentina

More details in:

www.lamuchicago.wordpress.com

www.facebook.com/LAMUChicago

www.twitter.com/LAMUChicago

Ready…Set….VOTE!!!!

Emilio Granados Franco

Running for President

I am Mexican, but I think of myself as Latin American just as equally as I am Mexican. I was born in another continent, but to me that is only where I took my first breath. My heart, mind and soul are as Latin American as they can be. For this reason I become profoundly upset when hearing unjust negative opinions about our beautiful countries. In spite of that, by living in 6 countries throughout my life, I have also learned that Latin Americans are by far considered the most joyful people in the world. Latin America should be known as a continent of opportunities just as well as a continent of festiveness.

Following this ideal, I am running for President of LAM in the upcoming elections. As such, my main objectives will be continuity and integration. LAM has already materialized outstanding accomplishments such as the LAM Leadership Series, the Latin American Movie and Wine Festivals and the upcoming Latin American Policy Forum. Such a legacy I will strive to preserve, but I will also work on achieving a virtue that is still greatly needed: international integration.

This is my promise to the Harris School community:

 Continuity and Integration!

Pedro Gerson & Rosa Castro Zarzur

Running for President and Treasurer

VOTE FOR PEDRO & ROSA!!!

Have you become convinced that nothing can EVER be known after taking Statistics? Do you not so secretly wish Don Coursey was the drunken uncle at your parties? Do you look at yourself in the mirror sporting a sweater vest thinking you look better than Kerwin? Do you think Badpolicy has way too much of a time lag?  Do you find Rafa’s sweatpants offensive? Do you agree that Elizabeth should tell more stories in class? Do you think Boris’ red shoes are ridiculous? Do you think Dylan is too attractive to go to school here? Do you think Simone just has way too much style for this place? Do you ever wonder if Dallas IS Justin Bieber? Do you think Sara Beth is secretly David Bowie? Do you think Roberto should ask more questions in class? Do you love Llamas?

If you answered yes to any of these, well you have now considered a bunch of inane questions that have nothing to do with our candidacy. But see, like you, we are not funny, so at least you see we truly will be your reps if you win. Here’s a bit of what matters:

As President and Treasurer we plan to continue the efforts of the current administration. LAM has gone from an organization of complete inactivity to one fully committed to student life. We plan to build upon their work, helping the activities they created become tradition: the LAM wine tasting, the Latin American film festival, and the Latin American policy conference.

Besides this effort we also plan to offer a greater mentoring role for LAM. Firstly, we want to develop a Harris mentoring partnership between first and second year LAM members to help students plan out their courses, find help to navigate the winter, get tips on how to perform better academically and find internships and develop a network from the get go. Also, we plan to expand alumni relations massively. A big missing component of the Harris experience is the ability to connect with former students who are working in the States or abroad. By dipping into this network we can take advantage of this untapped network and help LAM members find what professional opportunities lay out there.

We also would like to connect LAM members with the Latinamerican community in Chicago at large. We hope to develop a community service program where LAM members can devote a bit of their time and knowledge to help others.

Also, we want to make sure to keep things fun. We want to propose a quarterly LAM sponsored outing open to all Harris students. We would choose a Latin themed place to go out dancing or eating. We would go to places that are not in the radar of most people, so that we can all explore a bit of Chicago. Furthermore, we hope this helps in opening our pretty insular community to all the people at Harris, no matter their country of origin.

 

Miguel Garza

Running for Treasurer

My name is Miguel Garza and I am Mexican by birth but in this election the nationality is the least important fact because I am here looking for your support in order to work for all of us Latin Americans that have the oportunity to study in Harris. Before coming to Harris I had the opportunity to work as an advisor to the Minister of Finance in Mexico and also to a pre-candidate to the presidency. These experiences teached me how to understand the needs of everyone in a plural environment and then seek the best solution. Being capable of getting the needs and interests, in this case of all LAM members and other students in Harris is essential to guarantee continuity and good results.

Why run for Treasurer of LAM? The answer is simple, as a former public servant I am aware of the importance of a good and compact administration. The objective of this administration will be to get the biggest benefit for Latin Americans in Harris. Being part of the board of LAM is a big responsability because in case I get your support I will be able to put into practice actions that will benefit our daily life as part of LAM and also enrich the coexistence with all other students that aren’t part of LAM. My idea of LAM is not only to stay in our “Latin” environment because there is an imperative need to share all the treasures that we Latins have to give to our classmates, specially to those from other parts of the world.

That is why I invite you to let me work for you and WITH you. My objective will be to get the best of all our resources and give the best of us and make sure everybody gets to know the real Latina America through LAM. Let me work for all of us.

Saludos!

Jorge Vollrath Avila

Running for Secretary General

My name is Jorge Vollrath, I am a Mexican, a former public servant and an economist. I have almost six years of experience in two government development banks in Mexico and a ten year career as a high performance swimmer. I was selected captain of Mexico at the “Central American and the Caribbean Championship (CAMEX)” at Panama in 2004, experience that taught me the importance of standing up for the group I belong to.

I have contributed as Deputy Secretary at LAM for the past six months and it has been a very rewarding experience. I have worked with six other members of the LAM board, which are some of the most capable people I have ever met. Together, we offered to the Harris community, the first LAM Wine Tasting; we brought high-level policy makers focused on the Latin-American context with the Leadership Series, and we are organizing the best public policy forum ever made by a student organization from Harris (and probably from the entire University).

There are many things that can be improved in Latin America (that’s why we are here), but in the last decades many Latino countries have proved new ways of creating effective policies that can boost development all over the world. Therefore, with a combination of social, academic and networking activities, we can show what is Latin America made of. I am running for Secretary of “Latin American Matters” and with your support we can accomplish this goal.

Andres Perez

Running for Alumni Relations

As an active alum of The College of the University of Chicago, and future alum of the Harris School, I have learned the personal value of maintaining a solid professional and personal network. During the next year, I will strengthen the relationship between Harris alumni and LAM members by reaching out to Harris alum and encouraging them to participate in LAM events, and consider employment alternatives for LAM members. In this context, I will specifically work on securing internships for our members across our alumni network nationwide.

I will also build on current activities, such as the DC trip, and continue to support the LAM Team on all their initiatives.

democracy against itself

The fact that Hugo Chavez has been so front-line and center lately, and the particularly strong emotions his condition has elicited has made me think about him and some of the reasons why many anticipate his death so joyously (even if quietly). I think the answer has more profound roots than the horrifying conditions faced by many Venezuelans. These are not to be minimized. Inflation that hovers over 25%, the 201st worst public debt in the world, three devaluations since 2002, and most troubling of all the fifth worse homicide rate in the world, according to the U.N. Office of Drug and Crime. These are reasons enough to want him out of power, however they do not explain the visceral reactions to his ailment.

Mr. Chavez is the product of a non-dictatorial, yet massively clientelist and corrupt two-party system. After a failed coup d’état in 1992, Mr. Chavez regrouped and launched a political movement. Promising change he got to power through democratic means in 1998, as the old order was already crumbling. This is all unremarkable in the spectrum of Latin American politics. What I think makes Chavez “special” is that he represents a modern type of autocrat. He is the autocrat that has used democratic means to dismantle democracy itself; that used democracy against itself. He has remained in power through the popular vote, has patiently campaigned for candidates (and pushed for reforms) that enabled him to align all branches of government to himself, has used the legislative branch creatively to eliminate dissident voices, and most shockingly has changed the constitution to allow for perennial reelection. He has achieved all of this relatively peacefully and through legitimate means. Legitimate means however, are not necessarily just.

Many have been blinded into believing that the popular vote is all that is required to have a democracy. Yet democracy is much richer than that. Democracy requires justice, openness and discourse. It is not enough to say it is what the people want. We have systems in place to protect ourselves from ourselves. Democracy consists of a series of guiding principles that, as John Rawls put it, all reasonable free and equal people must agree upon. These guiding principles should direct policy. Even if a majority of people were to want a law that went against these principles, to enact such a law would be anti-democratic. An example of a guiding principle, is freedom of speech, even if most people were to want only 2 news sources, any policy that aimed to circumscribe news outlets to 2 would be anti-democratic. Another is limited terms, even if most people wanted Chavez to be president forever, any policy that sought to have that occur would be anti-democratic. Chavez has used his presidency and the confusion between public support and democracy to chip away at the social institutions that make a democracy legitimate.

One of Mr. Chavez’s most anti-democratic, and heinous traits, is his capacity to dismiss dissidence. He writes off his rivals as peons of a global Yankee order intent on destroying him and his partners. No serious criticism can be launched without accusations of manipulation or extortion. In a world where all criticism is simply dismissed as a product of secretive forces intent on stripping away your authority, all that is left is the power of irony. The wonderful YouTube series La Isla Presidencial is an example of how humor can be used to disarm an otherwise indestructible rhetoric. I believe that a proclivity to irony is found when people feel that serious debate is not even worth having because they wont be listened to. In any case, Chavez’s dismissal of any thoughtful critique has created a sense of frustration among those who oppose him, he has pushed them slowly and surely to ever more marked extremes.

The public elation in many sectors in and outside of Venezuela of Chavez’s illness reminds me of the last scene of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. In that scene of the film (spoiler alert), all the leaders of the Nazi party are convened to watch the premiere of a propaganda film featuring the heroic acts of an SS soldier who singlehandedly kills more than a hundred people. You are meant to be disgusted by the way in which the Nazis revel at the vicious destruction of human life. Later, the very theater where all the Nazi leaders are convened lights up in flames ending the spectators’ lives in one quick swoop. Suddenly you are the spectator celebrating death. Tarantino’s brilliance is that placing this sequence of events you are left with a moral dilemma over whether or not it is okay to cheer for the death of Hitler, Goebbels, et al. Just to be clear, I am not saying Chavez is a Nazi, calling anyone who does/did not engage in the purposeful, vicious and, especially, systematic destruction of a particular ethnic, religious or social group is more than cheap rhetoric, it is insulting to the victims of Nazi atrocities. I am simply using the film to highlight the moral dilemma that was re-kindled as a result of Chavez’ illness. It is probably wrong to feel any happiness for anyone who is struggling to stay alive. Yet Chavez has himself created a system of polarization, where people are with him or against him. The way he has transformed democracy against itself has created that situation. It is his own doing that as he’s unconscious and ailing in Cuba, even those with a strong moral compass may find their hearts hoping for the end.

end of year reflection

In the spirit of spending time with family and avoiding thorny topics at the dinner table, I will steer clear of politics as much as possible. Besides, it is the holiday season and it’s in poor taste to be writing about the one topic that so very much consumes our day to day throughout the rest of the year. Instead, I have chosen simply to write down some year-end reflection. I fear writing something so general (and not particularly related to Latin America) because anything I write will probably amount to little more than adolescent sophistry. Nonetheless, as they say: screw it.

I began to think about this column as I concluded a novel called Mr. Sammler’s Planet. This novel is one of those that you find yourself at odds explaining what it is about and yet you want to recommend it to absolutely everyone. The truth is that not much happens, and yet with his characteristic erudition and rapacious use of language Saul Bellow talks brilliantly about the folly of modern existence and humans’ place in the universe. The novel is about a man confronting his later years and trying to resolve the meaning of his own existence. However, the novel is about so much more than that. It is this “so much more” that gave me some pause.

Among the many things explored in the novel, is the wonder of scientific precision, but also that precision’s “mathematical indifference.” Bellow makes the point that however amazing our modern science may be, it can have a dehumanizing tendency. As a student of public policy, this strikes me as true. As students and practitioners we are given the tools to categorize disorder and to justify decisions on numbers. It is undeniable that these metrics make our jobs better, however it is arrogant to believe that they make it flawless. We need to be more humble despite the scientific methods we use, for these can make us cow from using our common sense and appealing to our common humanity.

Mr. Sammler is a character that suffers from a desire to order the world. He does not allow himself, or others, to just be, instead he is consumed by ideas. It is through abstraction that he copes. Our modern existence is plagued with such a will to rationalize. We are deluded in thinking that if we can just find the proper explanations for events, we can be in control of them. With the right diagnosis you can move to the appropriate treatment. What I think Sammler realizes is that this mentality is a fallacy. It is not that we cannot strive to understand more, and that this understanding can help us lead better lives. It is that even if we are to understand more about the world, we will still not be in control of it. We need to become more comfortable with this lack of control. Our lives are threatened constantly. I don’t mean fake existential threats like terrorism, but real ones like natural disasters, life-changing accidents, illness, the very nature of the finality of life. This condition is not a bad thing however. We need to start accepting that which we cannot control, and focusing on that which we can. The ability to make this distinction will lead us, I think, in the general to have better policies and in the personal to lead richer lives.

Finally, I think there are elements of the novel that explore the banality of evil. That so-often misunderstood concept that describes evil as an absence of thought, not as a condition present in only a few of us. Bellow explores indirectly that which Hannah Arendt wrote about explicitly: the capacity for each and every one of us to be capable of horrors. Every day in the news, we are presented with the picture that crazy people are out there perpetrating horrible crimes. And while that may be true in many instances, in most it is not the case that these people are any less human than we are. I am not trying to acquit people from their guilt; that would be far too relativistic even for me. What I am saying is that in the face of tragedy we need to resist the urge to distinguish between “us the good” and “they the bad.” We need to think about the reasons for the tragedies, without pontificating that we understand perfectly well why things happened. More importantly, if we are truly going to try to make these horrific tragedies end, then we need to lead “examined lives,” and encourage others to do the same. For it is only through critical thought that we can avoid the tragedies of evil.

May this coming year be a happy and healthy one for all. Big cheers to everyone.

 

a moral perspective on the war on drugs

As the sun set on Felipe Calderon’s presidency the articles assessing the successes and the failures of his term began to appear. Some articles praised his handle of healthcare issues, some his willingness to engage with the public in debate, some criticized him for failing to end a telecommunications oligopoly and others for seeing poverty levels go up. Myriads of opinions surfaced and yet all the writers, inevitably, spilled ink dissecting the “War on Drugs.” This issue has become central to any discussion of what Calderon did right and what Peña Nieto must do as the new incumbent. A lot is said, but the conversation remains disperse. People talk past each other, not only because they are not listening but also because they do not clearly establish what it is they are talking about. A way to avoid this wonky dissonance is through the perspective of a normative framework. I believe that a framework can help us have a we a more constructive dialogue. I therefore set out to analyze the moral justification of the War on Drugs based on the “Just War Theory.” At the outset I must admit that even an analysis of the issue through established objective principles, is not objective. The application of the principles serve as a tool to discuss the issue in a more productive manner, they do not however erase the unavoidability of subjectivity.

 The reason to use “Just War Theory” is that most of its principles became the foundation for international conflict jurisprudence – the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter are codifications of many of the principles, for example. “Just War Theory” is a branch of moral philosophy that has, until recently, found little to no philosophical opposition. The doctrine dates to the Roman Empire, but was not a sophisticated and thought out philosophy until the 16^th and 17^th centuries. It establishes a set of objective moral principles to assess the validity of a war. Although this theory is mainly centered on the notion of international conflict, I believe that the principles are uncontroversial enough to use them to analyze a domestic struggle.

The theory distinguishes between the justification for war itself (jus ad bellum) and the justified conduct in war (jus in bello). Here we will focus on the former of the two. In simplest terms, there are six principles to justify a war: just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, necessity or last resort, proportionality and reasonable hope of success. “Just cause” is the most important principle. It establishes that a state may only launch a war for the right reasons. These often include an external attack, the protection of the innocent, or the correction of a wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. “Legitimate authority” refers to the legitimacy of the governing body that commences the conflict. “Right intention” refers to the idea that a State can only fight a war for the sake of its just cause. This principle establishes as immoral a conflict that has ulterior motives, such as a land grab, revenge or ethnic cleansing, for example. “Last resort” is the idea that the State has extinguished all other possible venues for conflict resolution. “Proportionality” refers to a sort of cost-benefit analysis, where if it seems the goods that will result from it will outweigh the evils, then the war is justified. Finally, there is a requirement that there be a measurable impact on the situation at hand, meaning that there’s a probability that the State will win.

I will look at these principles not in order, attacking the easy ones first. We can dispense immediately with “legitimate authority” as the Mexican authorities were democratically elected. Also the government passes the “right intention” part of the analysis, as the war has strictly been about eliminating the cartels and the supply of narcotics. “Measurable impact” is a matter of perspective, and it is hard for us now, as we see the situation six years later, to judge what were the chances of success. It is therefore difficult to discredit Calderon’s administration based on this principle.

An analysis based on the other principles is not as forgiving towards Calderon’s offensive. The first and most important principle is “just cause.” I believe that this is where we can find most disagreement. The first point to highlight is that the administration did not express what was the objective of this war, or if it did, it did not do so clearly. If the goal was to restore institutional order by recovering areas controlled by the cartels, then it can be said that it had a justification in launching a war (subject to all the limitations established by the other principles). If the objective was to stop the supply of drugs, then it is harder to justify a full-blown military offensive. “Just cause” is reserved for the most serious of offenses, not for violations of the law. Trafficking of narcotics is not a reason enough to begin a fight that would have great human costs. Because it is not clear what the cause of the war is, especially after six years of nebulous rhetoric, it is hard to say that the War on Drugs is justified under this principle.

Making matters worse for the bellicose supporters, are the principles of “last resort” and “proportionality.” It is more than questionable that all had been done to try and eliminate the cartels and their influence prior to starting the offensive. There was still more that could be done to target their money laundering operations (and therefore their true source of influence), also institutions could have been strengthened to fight corruption allowing for legal mechanisms that would dismantle the cartels, and police forces could have been given more resources and restructured to combat a sophisticated and wealthy opponent. These are just some of the many things that could have been done prior to the offensive, and that serve simply to elucidate that war came far too hastily. With regards to “proportionality”, it is unclear whether there was any cost-benefit analysis prior to launching the offensive against the cartels. Clearly now it seems that the costs have outweighed the benefits. A death toll that hovers around 60,000 with absolutely no reduction in drug supply or the presence of cartels across the country (and, in fact, increases in both) is painfully resonant. Even prior to the conflict, what potential gains could have justified the loss of lives? Even if the death toll that exists today could not have been predicted six years ago, there was still an approximation of casualties. I see no potential gains as outlined by the administration that could have offset the human costs of the conflict.  

Ultimately, Calderon’s offensive fails to pass the moral analysis of the Just War Theory. It was, in my view, not a measure of “last resort,” not “proportional” and murky on its “just cause.” As the new administration faces the challenges ahead, it needs to make sure that its policies with regards to security are guided by a moral compass that does not fail as the Calderon administration’s did.

The Rankings Myth

A grunt of discontent has echoed softly across Latin America due to the recent, and unsurprising, Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Only four Latin American universities figured in the top 400 (Universidade do Sao Paulo and Universidade Estadual de Campinas in Brazil; Universidad de los Andes in Colombia and the UNAM in Mexico). Of course it would be nice if more of Latin American universities featured in this ranking, it is hard to argue against the noble goal of having elite institutions of higher learning. However, there are structural reasons that will prevent any influx of resources from actually moving universities up the ranking ladder. I want to make the case that these structural differences mean that being low in the rankings is not as important as it is being made out to be.
One must begin by seeing which universities figure most prominently in this ranking. Out of the top twenty universities, fifteen are from the U.S. Looking down the list, we see that American universities dominate the higher rankings disproportionately. I am going to compare the Latin American model to the American model because this latter one is the one that seems most successful according to Times Higher Education. Also – to clarify – when comparing models, I am writing about the normative ideal behind them, not about what actually occurs.
American higher education is most strongly associated with the liberal arts educational model. This educational model was born during classical antiquity and was created to give students the necessary tools to participate in civic life. The actual content of the curriculum has been modified from antiquity, through the Renaissance, to last year, because what people believe to be valuable to achieve this goal has changed over time. Albeit this gradual transformation in curricular content, the liberal arts curriculum’s goal has largely remained the same: the creation of a citizenry that can meaningfully engage in public life. That is not to say that the goal is that everyone becomes a civil servant, rather that everyone can become think critically and participate actively in the democratic process. This means that curriculums are structured in a way that foments critical thinking in a broad array of topics, not necessarily to give expertise in a single field. The goal is to learn how to learn. To do this, universities must be staffed with learning professionals. This means that all the professors must be dedicated to learning. That is precisely what happens, the student body is educated by an army of professionals of learning, people who have dedicated their lives to teaching and to learning about a particular subject. In essence, the structure itself requires that the faculty be made up entirely of scholars.
Higher education across Latin America has a different goal. The goal is not to create a citizen (in the classical sense) but to create a professional. This is why when you graduate you are awarded a professional license, a license that only someone who has graduated with your degree can receive. If you study in Latin America you will be ready to work at the moment of graduation, which is not the case in the U.S. (as a graduate of an American institution I say this with confidence). You do not need scholars to create professionals. Although scholars can and are useful for this goal, you can make-do with teachers who are practitioners in the field that they are teaching. This is what you see across most campuses in Latin America. Universities there are staffed by a mix of professionals and scholars. As a result, the research output of higher institutions is much lower than it is at universities of comparative sizes in the U.S. This does not mean that universities in Latin America are worse, there are many fine institutions that produce great thinkers (which is proven by the fact that hoards of Latin American students go abroad every year to pursue graduate education). It only means that the makeup of the faculty is very different.
The makeup of the faculty is determinative of your position in the ranking because 60% of a university’s score is derived from research (30% is research volume and 30% citation frequency). This disproportionately favors universities that house full time researchers. If the entire faculty is built by academics that are constantly publishing, then these schools will place higher in the rankings. Since the institutional goals determine the makeup of the faculty, they also have a direct effect on a university’s position in the rankings. If the goal is to train professionals, universities will not have as many researchers, meaning a lower ranking. This is the reason for Latin America’s lackluster performance.
Neither of the goals sought by either the Latin American model or the U.S. model is deontologically better than the other. Many graduates from the liberal arts system leave frustrated given that they know a lot but feel as if they have no skills that actually help them in the workplace. Meanwhile, graduating as a licensed professional may enable able you to quickly succeed at your job, but having never been exposed to other disciplines you may remain unaware of other types of work you may enjoy more or other disciplines that may shed light on the particular field in which you work. There are more costs and benefits associated with each model than the ones mentioned, this brief aside was simply to demonstrate that neither of them is fundamentally better than the other.
There are other reasons why institutions may push to have more and more productive researchers (which will lead them to better positions on the list). Perhaps one believes that more research will lead to greater technological or industrial advancement, meaning that the countries that house these institutions will compete in certain industries. Perhaps it is this belief that has driven Asian countries to seriously invest in research universities and has pushed their universities up on the list. This correlation between volume of research and technological innovation and economic growth may exist, or it may not. That is a question that can be empirically analyzed. The point is however that where you fit in the ranking is a result of the goals that each university, and each country, seeks to achieve. Rather than focusing on placing higher on the ranking, countries need to assess what objectives they have for their universities and if these being met. If a country decides to push for growth in research institutions, it should be because there are legitimate reasons for wanting this type of institutions. It should not be because having or expanding research universities will lead to more universities being higher on a list. A list that cannot truly capture the most important thing of all: where students are actually learning. A list that therefore remains ultimately meaningless.

LAM Elections: 2012-2013 first-year representatives

Every year, LAM holds elections for first-year representatives. This year, elections will be on Thursday, Oct 11th from 9 am to 5 pm. Results will be released on Friday, Oct 12th at 9:00am.

Only LAM’s registered members will receive an email inviting them to take part in the electronic elections. As of today, three candidates are running for LAM’s board. Below are their proposals:

For Deputy President: Emilio Granados Franco

Emilio Granados

I am from Mexico, but I like to think of myself as Latin American just as equally as I am Mexican. I was born in another continent, but to me that is only where I took my first breath. My heart, mind and soul are as Latin American as they can be. For this reason I become profoundly upset when hearing unjust negative opinions about our beautiful countries. In spite of that, by living in 6 countries throughout my life, I have also learned that Latin Americans are by far considered the most joyful people in the world. Latin America should be known as a continent of opportunities just as well as a continent of festiveness.

Following this ideal, I am running for Deputy President of LAM in the upcoming elections. I believe some of the best public policies in the world have been born in Latin American countries and could easily be exported to the rest of the world, including advanced economies: exclusive lanes for buses, conditional social transfers or neutralizing guerrilla warfare are just a few. Furthermore, I believe Latin America still needs its best and brightest (Harris students) and LAM is the perfect gateway to connect with them.

Hence, as Deputy President of LAM as well as assisting the President, I will strive to:

• Continue to socially solidify the enduring tradition of Latin American festiveness
• Establish a “Partner Program” with native English speakers in Language Camp
• Expand the Practicuum project to Latin American countries
• Increase membership and consequently budget
• Expand the Latin American Survival Guide
• Create a Latin American Jobs tool

Viva Harris

Emilio Granados Franco*

*(Including second last names is a sign of respect to mothers; and all Latin American women for that matter)

 

For Deputy Treasurer: Rosa Castro Zarzur

Bringing Latin America to the Heart of Harris, and Harris to the heart of Latin America, is a challenge that demands – among other important things – financial resources. A stable and increasing account will allow our student organization to not only organize more events throughout the year, but also to boost the effect of each event. Considering the direct relationship between a group’s financial resources and its impact on campus, it is imperative that we develop a financial strategy of our own.

Towards this end, I suggest the following recommendations for consideration by the LAM members:

1. Implementation of a small, periodical fee to all LAM members: This initiative will allow us to increase the number of LAM events throughout the year as more money enters our account on a monthly basis, not just once a year with membership payments. The amount of money collected through this mechanism is positively affected by the number of members in our organization. With this nominal fee, every new member means more resources will be made available.
2. Foreign Investment: Following the example of our beloved Latin American countries, attracting non-Latin Americans to our group is important for two main reasons: (1) it enhances the internationalization of our engagements and (2) it increases the financial resources available. Foreign Investment should also be sought regardless of the membership status of an individual (or entity): that is, our financial strategy should consider external fundraising as a potentially significant financial resource.

I will work to continue developing a sound strategy that acts on these ideas with the goal to dramatically improve LAM’s financial state. My experience as a fundraiser and resource manager in a Colombian NGO will enable me to actively contribute to the design and implementation of an effective financial strategy, and to support our current Treasure in his financial plans.

Rosa Castro Zarzur

 

For Deputy Secretary: Jorge Vollrath

Latin America is about empathy. The initial interaction between two Latin Americans is natural; we share traditions, values, but most important, we have the same awareness of the social inequalities in the world, characteristic that facilitate our communication. This awareness is also shared between policy makers from all over the planet; therefore, we need to take advantage of this empathy between the Harris students to share ideas that enhance the potential of the “warmest” region on Earth.

My name is Jorge Vollrath, I am a Mexican, a former public servant and an economist. I have almost six years of experience in two government development banks in Mexico and a ten year career as a high performance swimmer. I was selected captain of Mexico at the “Central American and the Caribbean Championship (CAMEX)” at Panama in 2004, experience that taught me the importance of standing up for the group I belong to.
Amigas, amigos, güeyes, huevones, guys and friends, I am running for Deputy Secretary of “Latin American Matters” and with your support we can make of Harris the warmest school of the University of Chicago.

Jorge Vollrath