We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 May 2022
The Ford Foundation's involvement with the social sciences in Brazil coincided with the early years of the military regime that ruled the country between 1964 and 1985. The paper studies how changed political circumstances in the United States and abroad induced the Foundation to gradually abandon the technocratic approach that had governed its overseas programme since the 1950s, thus introducing a critical shift in its policies toward the developing world. A grant proposal to the University of Brasília, which had been subject to repeated military interventions since 1964, highlighted the ethical dilemmas raised by the goal of fostering policy-relevant research in an authoritarian political context. Relying on a pragmatic decision-making framework that converted ethical and ideological considerations into cost–benefit exercises, the Foundation finally moved away from the maxims of modernisation theory to embrace new strategic priorities like human rights, democracy and intellectual pluralism.
El involucramiento de la Fundación Ford con las ciencias sociales en Brasil coincidió con los primeros años de régimen militar que gobernó el país entre 1964 y 1985. El artículo estudia cómo circunstancias políticas cambiantes en los Estados Unidos y en el exterior indujeron a la Fundación a abandonar gradualmente el enfoque tecnócrata que dirigió su programa exterior desde los años 1950, desarrollando un desplazamiento crítico en sus políticas hacia el mundo en desarrollo. Una solicitud de financiamiento para la Universidad de Brasilia, la que había sido sujeta de repetidas intervenciones militares desde 1964, resaltó los dilemas éticos surgidos por la meta de apoyar investigaciones políticamente relevantes en un contexto autoritario. Basándose en un marco pragmático de toma de decisiones que convertía a las consideraciones éticas e ideológicas en ejercicios de costo–beneficio, la Fundación se movió finalmente fuera de los postulados de la teoría de la modernización para adoptar nuevas prioridades estratégicas como los derechos humanos, la democracia y el pluralismo intelectual.
O envolvimento da Fundação Ford com as ciências sociais no Brasil coincidiu com os primeiros anos do regime militar que governou o país entre 1964 e 1985. O artigo estuda como as mudanças políticas nos Estados Unidos e no exterior induziram a Fundação a abandonar gradualmente a abordagem tecnocrática que governou seu programa no exterior desde a década de 1950, inaugurando assim uma guinada crítica em suas políticas para o mundo em desenvolvimento. Uma proposta de financiamento para a Universidade de Brasília, que vinha sendo submetida a repetidas intervenções militares desde 1964, destacou os dilemas éticos levantados pelo objetivo de promover pesquisas relevantes para políticas em um contexto autoritário. Baseando-se em uma estrutura pragmática de tomada de decisões que converteu considerações éticas e ideológicas em exercícios de custo–benefício, a Fundação finalmente se afastou das máximas da teoria da modernização para abraçar novas prioridades estratégicas como direitos humanos, democracia e pluralismo intelectual.
1 Jeffrey Puryear gives a systematic account of the Foundation's actions in Chile after the 1973 coup: ‘Higher Education, Development Assistance, and Repressive Regimes’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 17: 2 (1982), pp. 3–35. For the role played by Kalman Silvert in coordinating the Ford Foundation's response to the crisis of the Southern Cone democracies, see Cleaves, Peter S. and Dye, Richard W., ‘Bringing Vision, Mission, and Values to Philanthropy’, in Lowenthal, Abraham F. and Weinstein, Martin (eds.), Kalman Silvert: Engaging Latin America, Building Democracy (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2016), pp. 115–25Google Scholar.
2 Korey, William, Taking on the World's Repressive Regimes: The Ford Foundation's International Human Rights Policies and Practices (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp. 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Carmichael to Nicholson, ‘Request for “A” Status, University of Brasília’, 27 Jan. 1972, Folder 1, Box 1, FA721, Ford Foundation Records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, NY (hereafter FFR).
4 Henry and Edsel Ford bequeathed all the Class A (non-voting) stocks of the Ford Motor Company to the Foundation in order to avoid new inheritance taxes implemented by the Roosevelt administration. See Sutton, Francis X., ‘The Ford Foundation: The Early Years’, Daedalus, 116: 1 (1987), pp. 41–91Google Scholar.
5 Gaither, H. Rowan, Report of the Study for the Ford Foundation on Policy and Program (Detroit, MI: Ford Foundation, 1949)Google Scholar; Bell, Peter D., ‘The Ford Foundation as a Transnational Actor’, International Organization, 25: 3 (1971), pp. 465–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sutton, ‘The Ford Foundation’; Geiger, Roger L., ‘American Foundations and Academic Social Science, 1945–1960’, Minerva, 26: 3 (1988), pp. 315–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
6 Wolf, Gordon and Carlson, ‘Ford Foundation Mission to Brazil, July–August, 1959’, Catalogued Report 000008, FA739A, FFR.
7 The Brazilian military regime (1964–85) comprises different periods distinguished by their levels of authoritarianism and brutality. The first few years are typically regarded as a ‘moderate’ phase, when the regime strived to retain a semblance of civic legitimacy for its activities. The context changed dramatically from 1969, leading to an era of increased repression that lasted for most of the 1970s, only to be softened with the initial overtures toward a democratic transition during the early 1980s. The publication of Institutional Act no. 5, which suspended Congress and the right to habeas corpus, was a watershed moment in the transition between the first two periods.
8 Dezalay, Yves and Garth, Bryant G., The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 104–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Crowther-Heyck, Hunter, ‘Patrons of the Revolution: Ideals and Institutions in Postwar Behavioral Science’, Isis, 97: 3 (2006), pp. 420–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Isaac, Joel, ‘The Human Sciences in Cold War America’, The Historical Journal, 50: 3 (2007), pp. 725–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engerman, David C., ‘Social Science in the Cold War’, Isis, 101: 2 (2010), pp. 393–400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Solovey, Mark and Cravens, Hamilton (eds.), Cold War Social Science: Knowledge Production, Liberal Democracy, and Human Nature (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solovey, Mark, Shaky Foundations: The Politics–Patronage–Social Science Nexus in Cold War America (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.
10 The potential and limitations faced by Ford as an institution that acted transnationally while seeking to retain a certain degree of independence from US foreign policy have been examined by one of its own high-profile officers: Bell, ‘The Ford Foundation as a Transnational Actor’. On the entanglement between big philanthropic foundations and the US foreign policy establishment throughout the twentieth century, see Parmar, Inderjeet, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loïc, ‘On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason’, Theory, Culture & Society, 16: 1 (1999), pp. 41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 A similar claim has been advanced by Álvaro Morcillo Laiz, based on the Rockefeller Foundation's involvement with Colegio de México during the 1940s: Laiz, Álvaro Morcillo, ‘La gran dama: Science Patronage, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican Social Sciences in the 1940’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 51: 4 (2019), pp. 829–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 In the case of Brazilian economics, this shift of emphasis led to the consolidation of an academic community characterised by its commitment to theoretical and methodological pluralism, in sharp contrast to prevailing worldwide trends in the field: Fernández, Ramón García and Suprinyak, Carlos Eduardo, ‘Manufacturing Pluralism in Brazilian Economics’, Journal of Economics Issues, 53: 3 (2019), pp. 748–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 The early stages in the institutionalisation of the social sciences in Brazil are discussed in Maria Hermínia Tavares de Almeida, ‘Dilemas da institucionalização das ciências sociais no Rio de Janeiro’, in Sérgio Miceli (ed.), História das ciências sociais no Brasil, vol. 1 (São Paulo: Vértice/Idesp/Finep, 1989), pp. 188–216. On the Ford Foundation's later involvement with the field, see Sérgio Miceli, ‘A aposta numa comunidade científica emergente: A Fundação Ford e os cientistas sociais no Brasil, 1962–1992’, in Sérgio Miceli (ed.), A Fundação Ford no Brasil (São Paulo: Editora Sumaré, 1993), pp. 33–97; Leticia Canêdo, ‘The Ford Foundation and the Institutionalization of Political Science in Brazil’, in Johan Heilbron, Gustavo Sorá and Thibaud Boncourt (eds.), The Social and Human Sciences in Global Power Relations (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), pp. 243–66; Fernandez, Ramon G. and Suprinyak, Carlos E., ‘Creating Academic Economics in Brazil: The Ford Foundation and the Beginnings of ANPEC’, EconomiA, 19: 3 (2018), pp. 314–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 The classic account of the premises sustaining this liberal consensus is Packenham, Robert A., Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973)Google Scholar. Nils Gilman chronicles the rise and fall of the liberal approach to developmental studies known as modernisation theory: Gilman, Nils, Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003)Google Scholar. On the influence exerted by this rationale over the Ford Foundation's work in Brazil during the 1960s, see Benedetta Calandra, ‘De la selva brasileña a la capital de las ciencias sociales: Proyectos modernizadores de la Fundación Ford en América Latina, 1927–1965’, Historia y Política, 34 (2015), pp. 53–80; Rocha, Edneia Silva Santos, ‘Contribuições da Fundação Ford à formação e consolidação de campos científicos no Brasil’, InCID: Revista de Ciência da Informação e Documentação, 7: 2 (2016), pp. 93–117Google Scholar.
16 Iber, Patrick, Neither Peace nor Freedom: The Cultural Cold War in Latin America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Ford's long-term involvement in efforts to export US culture and values to Latin America, see also Calandra, ‘Selva brasileña’.
17 Parmar, American Century, pp. 183–9.
18 The Rockefeller Foundation had extended limited support to social science programmes in Latin America since the 1940s. It later contributed to the cooperation agreement between the University of Chicago and the Catholic University of Chile that produced the ‘Chicago Boys’ – the famous group of Chilean economists who undertook their graduate studies at Chicago and took back with them an unyielding commitment to free markets; many of the Chicago Boys later became directly involved with the Pinochet regime. The Rockefeller Foundation likewise supported a pioneering initiative by the Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) in Brazil during the early 1960s, which prepared economists for advanced graduate training in the United States. These actions, however, paled in comparison to the comprehensive character of Ford's programme in the field. See Geiger, ‘American Foundations’; Valdés, Juan Gabriel, Pinochet's Economists: The Chicago School in Chile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Elisa Klüger, ‘Meritocracia de laços: Gênese e reconfigurações do espaço dos economistas no Brasil’, PhD Dissertation, USP, 2017, pp. 167–8; Morcillo Laiz, ‘La gran dama’.
19 Nicholas R. Micinski, ‘The Changing Role of the Ford Foundation in International Development, 1951–2001’, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28 (2017), pp. 1301–25.
20 Dezalay and Garth, Palace Wars, pp. 64–6.
21 Martins Filho, ‘Ofício para Stacey Widdicombe’, 8 July 1963, Reel 3637, Grant File 64-407, FA732C, FFR.
22 ‘Request for Grant Action, Strengthening of Economics Teaching and Research in Northeast Brazil’, 22 June 1964, Reel 3637, Grant File 64-407, FA732C, FFR.
23 The Ford Foundation Annual Report, 1962, p. 49. The Ford Foundation's reports are available via https://www.fordfoundation.org/search/?q=annual+report&p=0.
24 The Ford Foundation Annual Report, 1963, p. 6.
25 ‘Agreement on the Economics Teaching and Research Program at the University of Ceará’, 1964, Reel 3637, Grant File 64-407, FA732C, FFR.
26 The project dated back to a 1958 contract between Purdue and UREMG, sponsored by the US State Department through the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), to foster programmes in rural education and home economics: ‘An Appraisal of the Needs of the Universidade Rural do Estado de Minas Gerais’, July 1964, Catalogued Report 000134, FA739B, FFR. In 1969, UREMG became the current Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV).
27 Thomas, ‘Final Narrative Report on the Ford Foundation's grant to Purdue University … for the Foundation's project with the State Secretariat of Agriculture in the State of Minas Gerais’, 24 July 1968, Reel 2676, Grant File 63-580, FA732C, FFR.
28 Schuh to Bell and Carmichael, ‘First Annual Report, Supplemental Grant to the Agricultural Secretariat of Minas Gerais’, 18 June 1969; Schuh, ‘Letter to William Carmichael’, 15 April 1970, Reel 2676, Grant File 63-580, FA732C, FFR.
29 Baer to Widdicombe, ‘Some Further Comments Related to the Getúlio Vargas Foundation Economic Research and Staff Development Program’, 21 Aug. 1967, Reel 1886, Grant File 67-573, FA732C, FFR.
30 Widdicombe to Wilhelm, ‘Getulio Vargas Foundation, Economic Research and Staff Development’, 26 Aug. 1967, Reel 1886, Grant File 67-573, FA732C, FFR.
31 ‘The Ford Foundation Program and Brazilian Agriculture’, August 1964, Catalogued Report 002609, FA739D, FFR.
32 Camargo et al., ‘Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas, Annual Report for the Year 1966’, 29 March 1967, Reel 5335, Grant File 65-007, FA732C, FFR.
33 Baer to Widdicombe, ‘Some Further Comments’, 21 Aug. 1967.
34 An in-house study by the Ford Foundation History Project describes the Bundy years as ‘The Shift to Social Justice’: Patricia Rosenfield and Rachel Wimpee, ‘The Ford Foundation: Themes, 1936–2001’, Rockefeller Archive Center, 2015, p. 15. On the implications of this transition for the Foundation's activities in Latin America, see Jacquelyn Marie Holmes, ‘From Modernization and Development to Neoliberal Democracy: A History of the Ford Foundation in Latin America 1959–2000’, Honors Thesis, Bates College, 2013, pp. 32–74.
35 The Ford Foundation Annual Report, 1968, p. xv.
36 Silvert, ‘The Foundation, the Social Sciences, and Latin America’, April 1976, Catalogued Report 005065, FA739B, FFR. See also Dezalay and Garth, Palace Wars, pp. 68–70.
37 Kalman Silvert was also the first president of the Latin American Studies Association (1967–8).
38 Horowitz, Irving Louis (ed.), The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship between Social Science and Practical Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967)Google Scholar.
39 Solovey, Mark, ‘Project Camelot and the 1960s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics–Patronage–Social Science Nexus’, Social Studies of Science, 31: 2 (2001), pp. 171–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Iber, Neither Peace nor Freedom, pp. 196–210.
41 Marchesi, Aldo, ‘Imaginación política del antiimperialismo: Intelectuales y política en el Cono Sur a fines de los sesenta’, Estudios Interdisciplinarios de América Latina y el Caribe, 17: 1 (2006), pp. 135–59Google Scholar. The Camelot scandal also negatively affected the implementation of the Marginality Project in Chile, another ambitious initiative in the social sciences sponsored by Ford: Plotkin, Mariano Ben, ‘US Foundations, Cultural Imperialism and Transnational Misunderstandings: The Case of the Marginality Project’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 47: 1 (2014), pp. 65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Holmes, ‘Modernization and Development’, pp. 34–6.
43 Solovey, ‘Project Camelot’, pp. 192–7; Gilman, Mandarins, pp. 56–62.
44 Silvert, Kalman H., ‘American Academic Ethics and Social Research Abroad: The Lesson of Project Camelot’, Background, 9: 3 (1965), p. 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45 Ibid., p. 220.
46 Despite its promising early start, the development of the IBRE along the lines envisaged by Ford was hampered by leadership problems and personality conflicts, further compounded by the proximity of its top personnel to different branches of the Brazilian government. See Fernandez and Suprinyak, ‘Creating Academic Economics’, pp. 322–3.
47 Silvert to Carmichael, ‘Getúlio Vargas Foundation, IBRE’, 15 Sept. 1969, Reel 1886, Grant File 67-579, FA732C, FFR; original emphasis.
48 Baer and Maybury-Lewis to Carmichael and Bell, ‘Report on the Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas (Economics/Sociology Section) and Recommendation for Financial Assistance’, 11 July 1969, Reel 5389, Grant File 70-138, FA732C, FFR.
49 Baer to Carmichael, ‘Visit to IPE, December 23, 1969’, 6 Jan. 1970, Reel 5335, Grant File 65-007, FA732C, FFR.
50 Baer to Carmichael, ‘Visit to CEDEPLAR, July 15 to 17’, 18 July 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR.
51 Carmichael to Silvert, ‘Federal University of Minas Gerais, CEDEPLAR’, 27 Oct. 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR.
52 Silvert to Carmichael, ‘Federal University of Minas Gerais, CEDEPLAR’, 4 Nov. 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR.
53 Baer to Silvert, ‘Federal University of Minas Gerais, CEDEPLAR’, 13 Nov. 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR.
54 Silvert, Letter to Werner Baer, 4 Dec. 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR.
55 Baer, ‘Statement on the Events on the Night of June 12 to 13, 1970’; Nicholson to Bell and Wilhelm, ‘Detention of Foundation Personnel’, 16 June 1970, Folder 48, Box 4, FA624, FFR.
56 Carmichael to Silvert, ‘Federal University of Minas Gerais: CEDEPLAR’, 28 Nov. 1969, Reel 3755, Grant File 68-879, FA732C, FFR; original emphasis.
57 Carmichael to Manitzas, ‘Economics in São Paulo and More Generally in Brazil’, 18 Nov. 1970, Reel 5335, Grant File 65-007, FA732C, FFR.
58 Our account of the early history of UnB closely follows the eye-witness testimony of Salmeron, Roberto A., A universidade interrompida: Brasília 1964–1965 (Brasília: Editora UnB, 2012)Google Scholar.
59 Carlos Monarcha, Anísio Teixeira: A obra de uma vida (Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2001). Ribeiro remained at the Ministry of Education for only four months, serving thereafter as Chief of Staff to President Goulart. After the military coup, he was forced into exile. See Ribeiro, Darcy, Golpe e exílio (Brasília: Editora UnB, 2010)Google Scholar.
60 On the structure of Brazilian universities prior to the mid-1960s educational reforms, see Maria L. A. Fávero, ‘A Universidade no Brasil: Das origens à Reforma Universitária de 1968’, Educar (UFPR), 28 (2006), pp. 17–36.
61 Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta chronicles the conflictive relationship between Brazilian universities and the military regime, ranging from projects of modernising reform to police interventions and purges: Motta, Rodrigo Patto Sá, As universidades e o regime militar: Cultura política brasileira e modernização autoritária (Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2014)Google Scholar.
62 Lelis, Gabriel, ‘A UnB e os militares: Breve estudo sobre as relações entre a Universidade de Brasília e o regime autoritário brasileiro entre 1964 e 1965’, Noctua: Revista de História 1: 3 (2011)Google Scholar. Dependency theory was a radical approach to the study of relations between developed and underdeveloped nations that questioned the assumptions of mutual benefits and long-term convergence inherent in postwar developmental discourse. Andre Gunder Frank, the scholar most frequently associated with dependency theory during the 1960s and 1970s, had also been a visiting professor at UnB shortly before the military coup.
63 da Fonseca, Edson Nery, ‘Biblioteca Central da Universidade de Brasília: História com um pouco de doutrina e outro tanto de memórias’, Revista de Biblioteconomia de Brasília, 1: 1 (1973), pp. 35–42Google Scholar.
64 Bacha, ‘Letter to William Carmichael’, 8 June 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
65 Baer to Carmichael and Nicholson, ‘Report on Visit to the Department of Economics, University of Brasília’, 11 June 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
66 The Foundation negotiated a two-year grant to UnB with funds totalling US$162,000 for both economics and the social sciences. This was a modest commitment when compared to the five-year grants awarded exclusively to the economics programmes at USP and UFC in 1964, totalling US$433,000 and US$330,000 respectively – both of which, moreover, were later boosted by supplemental grants.
67 Ford had been involved in the funding of CENDEC since 1966.
68 Treverton to Nicholson, ‘University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences: Background and Recommendation for “A” Status for Grant in Economic and Social Science’, 16 July 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
70 Silvert, ‘The Foundation, the Social Sciences’.
71 Sorj, Bernardo, A construção intelectual do Brasil contemporâneo: Da resistência à ditadura ao governo FHC (Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2001)Google Scholar. Dezalay and Garth single out the CEBRAP case to illustrate the changing tactics adopted by Ford when dealing with the late-1960s Brazilian political context: Palace Wars, pp. 104–5. On the influence of the ‘CEBRAP model’ over other Ford-sponsored initiatives in Latin America, see Morales, Juan Jesús, ‘Entre la ciencia y la política: La forja de una élite intelectual latinoamericana’, Política/Revista de Ciência Política, 54: 1 (2016), pp. 157–88Google Scholar; ‘Científicos sociales latinoamericanos en Estados Unidos: Cooperación académica, movilidad internacional y trayectorias interamericanas alrededor de la Fundación Ford’, Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais, 60: 2 (2017), pp. 473–504.
72 IUPERJ, a private training and research centre in the social sciences, received a Ford grant in 1967 to assist its graduate programme in sociology and political science.
73 Similar arguments occupied OLAC staff in 1969 after the Chilean government expelled a group of Argentine scholars from the country due to their alleged connections with radical left-wing movements. The scholars had been relocated to Chile – many of them with Ford support – in the aftermath of the ‘Noche de los Bastones Largos’ (‘Night of the Long Batons’) of 29 July 1966, when students and academics who objected to the coup under General Juan Carlos Onganía were forcibly removed from faculties of the University of Buenos Aires: Benedetta Calandra, ‘La Ford Foundation y la “Guerra Fría Cultural” en América Latina (1959–1973)’, Americanía, 1 (2011), pp. 8–25.
74 Nicholson to Carmichael, ‘University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences: Request for “A” Status for Proposed Grant’, 16 July 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
75 Manitzas to Carmichael, ‘Request for “A” Status, University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences’, 11 Aug. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
76 Nicholson to Carmichael, ‘University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences: Additional Comments’, 20 Aug. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
77 Carmichael to Silvert, ‘University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences’, 13 Aug. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
78 Kalman Silvert, ‘National Political Change in Latin America’, in Kalman Silvert, The Conflict Society: Reaction and Revolution in Latin America, 2nd edition (New York: American Universities Field Staff, Inc., 1966), pp. 10–34; ‘The Strategy of the Study of Nationalism’, in Kalman Silvert, Expectant Peoples: Nationalism and Development, 2nd edition (New York: Vintage Books, 1967), pp. 3–38.
79 Kalman Silvert, ‘Political Leadership and Institutional Weakness in Argentina’, in Silvert, The Conflict Society, pp. 103–4.
80 Silvert, ‘American Academic Ethics’, p. 226.
81 Silvert to Carmichael, ‘Brasília, Social Science’, 23 Aug. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
82 The quotation is from Kalman Silvert, ‘An Essay on Interdisciplinary and International Collaboration in Social Science Research in Latin America’, in Stanley R. Ross (ed.), Latin America in Transition: Problems in Training and Research (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1970), p. 117; original emphasis.
83 Gardner to Carmichael, ‘Brasília, Social Sciences’, 27 Aug. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
84 Bonilla, ‘Letter to William Carmichael’, 29 July 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
85 The document was written as background material for a conference of Ford's International Division in New Delhi in October 1971. The timing, however, put it precisely within the context of the UnB negotiations, and it was extensively used in arguments over the grant.
86 Silvert to Bell, ‘Distasteful Regimes and Foundation Policies Overseas’, 18 Oct. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
87 Reichard to Nicholson, ‘Social Science in Brazil and the University of Brasília’, 24 Nov. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
88 Ibid.
89 Nicholson to Carmichael, ‘University of Brasília, Institute of Human Sciences: Request for “A” Status for Proposed Grant’, 9 Dec. 1971, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR.
90 Bonilla, ‘Letter to Stanley Nicholson’, 14 Jan. 1972, Reel 6573, Grant File 72-374, FA732C, FFR; original emphasis.
91 As in Packenham's classic formulation: Liberal America, passim.
92 Gilman, Mandarins, pp. 185–202.
93 ‘Conference on the Social Sciences in Latin America, Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, The Ford Foundation, Santa María, Peru, December 5–7, 1973’, Catalogued Report 010152, FA739D, FFR.
