Innovative practices in Psychiatry. Argentina, 1960-1970

The paper analyzes innovative psychiatric practices that took place in Argentina during the sixties and seventies at the Hospital Jose Esteves in the province of Buenos Aires. Objective: To present the coexistence of different paradigms related to mental health in the same institution and to analyze the complexities generated by this scenario. Methodology: This study uses primary sources in the form of medical records of patients admitted to the hospital between 1960 and 1979. The medical records were cross-referenced with publications of newspapers and magazines of the time. Results: The analysis shows that the political environment during the era of militarydictatorship —characterized by ideological persecution and the inhibition of political expression— influenced the development of innovative psychiatric practices. At the same time, instances ofanti-Semitism and ideological persecution among health workers affected therapeutic approaches. Conclusions: While the introduction of innovative practices in mental health led to someresistance among the more orthodox psychiatrists, the presence of different paradigms shows a plan, both political and professional, to transform psychiatry and admission policy in Argentina.

Inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in Latin America: evidence from PISA 2006-2009

We assess inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in six Latin American countries, employing two waves of PISA data (2006 and 2009). By means of a non-parametric approach using a decomposable inequality index, GE(0), we rank countries according to their degree of inequality of opportunity. We work with alternative characterizations of types: school type (public or private), gender, parental education, and combinations of those variables. We calculate incremental contributions of each set of circumstances to inequality. We provide rankings of countries based on unconditional inequalities (using conventional indices) and on conditional inequalities (EOp indices), and the two sets of rankings do not always coincide. Inequality of opportunities range from less than 1% to up to 27%, with substantial heterogeneity according to the year, the country, the subject and the specificication of circumstances. Robustness checks based on bootstrap and the use of an alternative index confirm most of the initial results.