Explore the vast range of titles available.

At first glance, the Ford Foundation and the black power movement would make an unlikely partnership. After the Second World War, the renowned Foundation was the largest philanthropic organization in the United States and was dedicated to projects of liberal reform. Black power ideology, which promoted self-determination over color-blind assimilation, was often characterized as radical and divisive. But Foundation president McGeorge Bundy chose to engage rather than confront black power's challenge to racial liberalism through an ambitious, long-term strategy to foster the \"social development\" of racial minorities. The Ford Foundation not only bankrolled but originated many of the black power era's hallmark legacies: community control of public schools, ghetto-based economic development initiatives, and race-specific arts and cultural organizations. InTop Down, Karen Ferguson explores the consequences of this counterintuitive and unequal relationship between the liberal establishment and black activists and their ideas. In essence, the white liberal effort to reforge a national consensus on race had the effect of remaking racial liberalism from the top down-a domestication of black power ideology that still flourishes in current racial politics. Ultimately, this new racial liberalism would help foster a black leadership class-including Barack Obama-while accommodating the intractable inequality that first drew the Ford Foundation to address the \"race problem.\"

\"This book examines how the Ford Foundation International Fellowships Program, the world's largest private fellowship program in higher education, has succeeded in fostering social justice leadership over the past ten years. Top scholars from Asia Pacific, Latin America, the US, Africa, and Europe inquire into the program's development, implementation, and outcomes in their regions. They analyze the program's background, its effects on institutions, its effects on students' learning environments, and how well changes toward social justice worked. Through in-depth studies of leadership, diversity, social inclusion, and social justice in regional context, this book provides a wealth of comparative information on social justice in higher education worldwide\"-- Provided by publisher.

Inderjeet Parmar reveals the complex interrelations, shared mindsets, and collaborative efforts of influential public and private organizations in the building of American hegemony. Focusing on the involvement of the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations in U.S. foreign affairs, Parmar traces the transformation of America from an \"isolationist\" nation into the world's only superpower, all in the name of benevolent stewardship. Parmar begins in the 1920s with the establishment of these foundations and their system of top-down, elitist, scientific giving, which focused more on managing social, political, and economic change than on solving modern society's structural problems. Consulting rare documents and other archival materials, he recounts how the American intellectuals, academics, and policy makers affiliated with these organizations institutionalized such elitism, which then bled into the machinery of U.S. foreign policy and became regarded as the essence of modernity. America hoped to replace Britain in the role of global hegemon and created the necessary political, ideological, military, and institutional capacity to do so, yet far from being objective, the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations often advanced U.S. interests at the expense of other nations. Incorporating case studies of American philanthropy in Nigeria, Chile, and Indonesia, Parmar boldly exposes the knowledge networks underwriting American dominance in the twentieth century.

La década de los años sesenta del siglo XX fue un semillero de iniciativas públicas y privadas, de instituciones internacionales, cuyo objetivo era generar progreso social, político y económico en América Latina y en otras regiones del mundo. Colombia fue un país preferido de todas estas instituciones. La Fundación Ford en Colombia (1962-2012) hace evidente este hecho. Este libro destaca, entre otros logros, la modernización de la universidad colombiana: sobresale la particularcontribución a la modernización de la enseñanza del derecho, no solo en la Universidad de los Andes, sino en otras universidades del país, además del apoyo a la defensa de los derechos fundamentales por la vía del litigio estratégico. La Universidad de los Andes gozó de un privilegio que otras instituciones educativas no alcanzaron. Su mérito estuvo en haber maximizado las contribuciones que recibió y para esto fue fundamental el papel de jóvenes profesores, de otros másexperimentados y de empresarios que, en buena hora, impulsaron la tarea visionaria de su fundador, Mario Laserna Pinzón.

PurposeThis study reviews the teaching of real estate in the USA for the first 100 years after the foundational curriculum was laid down in 1923 by three key institutions: the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities (The Institute) and the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Its line of investigative pursuit is the persistent lamentation by American real estate scholars that real estate is not getting the respect it deserves as an academic discipline compared to its peers in the school of business such as accounting, finance and marketing. The study addresses a fundamental question: What is the cause of this endless “search for a discipline”? This is motivated by the belief that identification of the root cause of this “search for a discipline” will lead to the requisite solution: the intellectual foundation of the real estate discipline.Design/methodology/approachThe study used qualitative document analysis to review two primary documents published in 1959 as reports on business education in the USA: (1) Higher Education for Business, financed and sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and (2) The Education of American Businessmen – financed and sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The impacts of the publications on the teaching of real estate to date have been reviewed in the context of scholarly actions and literature that has been generated in relation to the two documents.FindingsThe two primary documents impacted negatively on the teaching of real estate. The committee members who produced the two reports had indicated that real estate did not fit into the business curriculum hence should not be taught in business school. This conclusion led to unintended negative outcomes for real estate education. The negative impact of the reports arose principally because the teachers of real estate misinterpreted the outcome to mean that they should tweak the real estate curriculum to fit in the pedagogical framework of the business school. This reaction is responsible for perpetuating the identity crisis that has plagued real estate as an academic discipline since its inception as a subject of study in 1923. Secondly, at the inception of the real estate education in 1923, while the AACSB accepted real estate as a discipline in the school of business, Richard T. Ely wrote the curriculum under land economics which has led to the persistent collegiate dilemma regarding the teaching of the discipline.Social implicationsThe study sheds light on the situation of business education in the USA and AACSB-accredited colleges internationally. It draws attention to the incoherent body of knowledge of business education and will help schools of business to redesign their curricula to include course contents that rightly reflects the business oriented academic disciplines.Originality/valueThe study is timely as it has been done 100 years since the development of the first standard collegiate real estate curriculum following the 1923 conference at Madison. The study has reviewed the first 100 years in terms of the persistent quest: “in search of a discipline”. In so doing, it has uncovered the root cause of this search during the first centennium; and to end the search, it proposes that real estate should not be taught as a business discipline.

This article examines the emergence of a synergy that allowed the early development of what was once considered the best anti-AIDS program in the developing world. Initial responses to AIDS in Brazil during the 1980s and early 1990s were marked by a confrontation between activists concerned with human rights, and a government focusing on biomedical management of the epidemic. After 1992, activists, medical researchers, government officials, international donors like the Ford Foundation, health officers, and multilateral agencies like the World Bank were galvanized to cooperate. This was a complex process of braiding knowledge and practices related to activism, science, public health, governance and philanthropy in which each constituency maintained its independence. The result was a complex, holistic, and nuanced AIDS program. The process helped bridge the gap between knowledge and advocacy, generated public awareness, and was instrumental to reducing AIDS mortality developing local human resources and comprehensive policies. Este artigo analisa a emergência de uma sinergia que permitiu o desenvolvimento inicial do que já foi considerado o melhor programa contra a AIDS no mundo em desenvolvimento. As respostas iniciais à AIDS no Brasil durante as décadas de 1980 e 1990 foram marcadas por um confronto entre ativistas, preocupados com os direitos humanos e governos, orientados para uma gestão biomédica da epidemia. Depois de 1992, a colaboração de ativistas, pesquisadores em medicina, doadores internacionais como a Fundação Ford, autoridades de saúde, e agências multilaterais como o Banco Mundial foi galvanizada. Foi um processo complexo de entrelaçamento de conhecimentos e práticas de ativismo, ciência, saúde pública, governança e filantropia, em que cada setor manteve sua independência. O resultado foi um programa de AIDS complexo, holístico e distinto. O processo ajudou a preencher a lacuna entre conhecimento e advocacia, gerou conscientização pública e foi fundamental para diminuir a mortalidade por AIDS e construir recursos humanos locais e políticas abrangentes.

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.