TREES (Teaching and Researching Equitable Economics from the South), an initiative of the Center for Studies on Economic Development (CEDE) at the Universidad de los Andes, funded by the Ford Foundation, is seeking research proposals to understand the causes and consequences of inequality, broadly defined.
Projects led by Principal Investigators based in Latin America and the Caribbean will receive support of up to COP 60,000,000 each.
We are open to research contemplating non-economic aspects of inequality. TREES welcomes empirical studies and contributions to the measurement, conceptualization, and historicization of inequality.
Some topics of reference may be:
Social segregation along income lines.
The economic and cultural implications of segregation.
Women in the economy of the global south.
Cultural, racial, gender diversity.
Environmental justice.
Social interactions: Migration.
Stereotypes and discrimination.
Inequality and segregation in the labor market.
Teaching inequality from different areas of knowledge.
Fiscal issues and inequality.
Formal and informal rules, norms, and inequality.
Citizens and the State.
Teaching to students with diverse characteristics
TREES encourages rigorous and intellectually ambitious research and welcomes proposals from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, both domestically and internationally.
Invitations to submit full proposals will be sent no later than February 2, 2024
Full proposal submissions (by invitation only). PIs invited to present full proposals will be notified no later than March 1, 2024.
You will be notified that your submission has been received within one week of submission.
Notes:
To include all Latin America and the Caribbean, this call, the documents to be delivered, the deliverables, and the associated events will be in English.
Grants are awarded to the Host Institution with the explicit commitment that this institution offers appropriate conditions for the Principal Investigator and their team to direct the research and manage its funding for the project's duration. The grant cannot be awarded directly to individuals.
Intellectual property shall remain with the PIs, but they grant dissemination rights to Uniandes and the Ford Foundation.
Any relevant changes to the proposal or team shall be submitted to [email protected] and will be subject to approval.
TREES seeks to reimagine economics as a discipline and economics in Latin America from a Global South perspective.By studying inequalities and obstacles to development from multiple disciplines, it will build innovative narratives that improve the understanding of inequality in its multiple dimensions, as well as other challenges specific to the region. To address these challenges, TREES works from three intertwined components: Research, Teaching, and Outreach. In these three areas, TREES will seek to involve a diverse and multidisciplinary group of researchers, students, institutions and countries.
The person selected in the call for the predoc fellowship will work, within the framework of the Research component, with the Principal Investigators (PI) of the Initiative: Juan Camilo Cárdenas, Leopoldo Fergusson and Jimena Hurtado.
Some of the topics of interest are segregation and social inclusion, citizens' relationship with the state, inequalities (gender, ethnicity, region of origin, among others), environmental justice, informality, labor markets, teaching inequality in economics from a global south perspective.
The position is ideal for a person who plans to apply to a PhD program at Universidad de los Andes or other higher education institutions. The selected person will get excellent research experience and mentoring from the PIs of the TREES initiative.
TREES (Teaching and Researching Equitable Economics from the South), an initiative of the Center for Studies on Economic Development (CEDE) at the Universidad de los Andes, funded by the Ford Foundation, is seeking research proposals to understand the causes and consequences of inequality.
Nine projects, led by Principal Investigators based in Latin America and the Caribbean, will receive the support of up to COP 60,000,000 each.
This initiative is particularly interested in research proposals incorporating innovative approaches, encouraging dialogue, and facilitating joint knowledge-building between economics and other disciplines. TREES seeks proposals considering the specificities of inequality in the Global South and whose impact goes beyond this specific support, for instance, through initiating a research agenda or establishing new collaborations of greater scope. Candidates with different skills and training backgrounds willing to work on highly innovative research projects are welcome.
TREES will give special consideration to conceptually and methodologically disruptive proposals and contribute to rethinking how we research, educate, and disseminate the economics of inequality.
The initiative will give priority to research contemplating non-strictly economic aspects of inequality. TREES welcomes empirical studies and contributions to the measurement, conceptualization, and historicization of inequality.
TREES encourages rigorous and intellectually ambitious research on the most pressing inequality questions. TREES seeks research with a lasting impact addressing societal needs or challenges. TREES welcomes proposals from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives, both domestically and internationally.
Proposal Guidelines
Interested applicants should fill out and submit the following documents:
1) Research Proposal*: You'll be expected to include:
Project title.
Project summary.
Motivation and objectives: Statement of the research question and description of how it contributes to the objectives of the call.
Methodology.
Expected outputs and how they are expected to impact a wider public or beyond the academy.
Co-funding sources: If co-funding sources still need to be identified or confirmed, evaluate the possibility of accessing these sources.
Capacities that you hope to create and strengthen.
Project Timeline: this should indicate the proposed start and end dates of the project as well as key project events and milestones. The significant activities listed in the project timeline should be reflected in the proposal narrative.
i) References, at most three pages.
*The research proposal (items a-h) may not exceed 7 pages with line spacing equal to or greater than 1.5 and font size equal to or greater than 11p.
2) Budget and Budget Justification: Include each budget item with a brief description and justification. The budget must be proposed in Colombian Pesos (COP). No indirect costs or bonuses for Principal Investigators will be funded. This section may not exceed 1 page with line spacing equal to or greater than 1.5 and font size equal to or greater than 11p.
3) Project Team: Describe the project team and identify the roles, responsibilities, and knowledge base of the Principal Investigator (PI), Co-PI(s), and any supporting researcher(s). If your project includes Co-PIs and other supporting researchers, articulate how the team will work together to complete the research project. Include a current Resume of the PI and Co-PI(s). This section may not exceed 1 page with line spacing equal to or greater than 1.5 and font size equal to or greater than 11p, excluding Resumes.
Eligibility
The PI must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or public/governmental institution willing to serve as the administering organization if the grant is awarded. The host institution must be legally based in Latin America or the Caribbean.
Submission Guidelines
Full proposals for the TREES Research Grant Fund must be submitted by June 18, 2023, at 11:59 PM Bogota time (UTC-5). You will be notified that your submission has been received within one week of submission.
Note:To encourage dialogue between investigators from Latin America and the Caribbean, this call, the documents to be delivered, the deliverables, and the associated events, will be in English.
Note: Grants are awarded to the Host Institution with the explicit commitment that this institution offers appropriate conditions for the Principal Investigator and their team independently to direct the research and manage its funding for the duration of the project. TREES Research Grant Fund cannot be awarded directly to individuals.
Commitments:
The successful candidate is expected to:
1) Comply with the guidelines on lobbying prohibition and the guidelines on prohibition on political campaign intervention detailed in Annex 1.
2) Proof of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is not required at the time of proposal submission. If IRB approval is needed for this project and it is chosen for funding, the awarded candidate will be responsible for obtaining IRB review and approval.
3) Complete proposed projects and their financial execution, including the delivery of their final reports and final products, no later than October 15, 2024.
4) Participate in a TREES meeting that will take place during the second quarter of 2024. The logistical and methodological details will be shared later.
5) Comply with deliverables subject to disbursements in accordance with the following schedule:
Deliverables and disbursements
Deliverable
Date
Disbursement rate
- Formalization of grant award.
August 2023
40% of the approved
budget
- Progress Report. A financial accounting report, in COP, which includes a statement by the responsible financial officer of your organization certifying the accuracy of the report. This report must cover the expenses of 40% of the budget.
March 2024
50% of the approved budget
- A financial accounting report, in COP, which includes a statement by the responsible financial officer of your organization certifying the accuracy of the report. This report must cover the expenses of 100% of the budget.
October,2024
10% of the approved budget
ANNEX 1
Direct Lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation through communication that:
Refers to specific legislation;
Reflects a view on the legislation; and
Is to any member or employee of a legislative body or any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of the legislation.
Grassroots Lobbying is any attempt to influence legislation through communication with the public that:
Refers to specific legislation;
Reflects a view on the legislation; and
Encourages the recipient with a “call to action” regarding the legislation (e.g., to contact a legislator by phone, email, sign a petition, etc.)
What is specific legislation?
Legislation is any action by any legislative body in the U.S. or overseas (e.g., the U.S. Congress, a national parliament, a state legislature, a local city council, etc.), including:
Specific legislative proposals (including those not yet introduced or pending in the body)
Authorizing and budget appropriations legislation
Legislative confirmation of executive appointees
Legislative resolutions, even if they have no binding effect
Treaties subject to legislative approval
A ballot initiative or referendum by the public (where the voters = legislative body)
U.N. resolutions that have binding effect on member states
Model legislation
What is not specific legislation?
The legislation does not include:
administrative rules or regulations enacted by a government agency or ministry
executive orders and other actions solely within executive power
judicial decisions
budget allocation decisions that do not require legislative approval
What does not qualify as lobbying?
There are some exceptions that allow foundation funds to be used for communications that would otherwise be considered lobbying:
1. Technical advice or assistance provided to a governmental body, committee, or subcommittee in response to a written request, if
the request is on behalf of the body (as opposed to an individual legislator); and
the response is made available to all members of the body on a nonpartisan basis, such as at a committee or subcommittee hearing.
2. Nonpartisan analysis, study, or research such as a white paper, report, or panel discussion, if
it contains a sufficiently full and fair exposition of an issue that would allow someone to form an independent opinion or conclusion; and
is distributed broadly (including those on both sides of the issue).
What are some examples?
Some examples of prohibited lobbying include:
drafting, negotiating, or providing comments or other technical assistance on a pending bill
meeting with legislative staff members to ask them to increase funding for a program that requires a legislative budget appropriation
asking the organization's members to write to their legislators to confirm a judicial appointee
asking the public to vote a particular way on a ballot initiative
Some examples of permissible advocacy include:
Monitoring the progress of pending legislation and sharing the results of the organization's
Website
Providing testimony at a congressional hearing in response to a letter from the committee
Expressing a view on a bill in an op-ed article that does not ask the public to take any action
Educating legislators on a particular issue without addressing specific legislation
Meeting with staff of a governmental agency to advocate for specific implementing regulations under an existing law
Filing a lawsuit to overturn a law
What are the key elements of prohibited political campaign intervention?
A candidate: Someone who offers himself or herself, or is proposed by others, as a contestant for elective public office at the national, state, or local level in any country.
Intervention includes:
Endorsing or opposing a candidate, verbally or in writing
Rating a candidate's fitness for office
Contributing to a candidate's campaign
Publicizing a candidate's endorsement of the organization's position
Issuing statements critical or approving of a public official's actions when that public official is also a candidate
Taking any other action that has the effect of promoting or opposing a candidate Intervention in support or opposition of a political party is also considered to be prohibited campaign intervention.
What kind of political activity is permitted?
Nonpartisan voter education is designed to educate the public and does not show a bias for or against a particular candidate or political party.
Speaking engagements where a candidate is invited to speak in a capacity other than as a candidate, as long as:
The invitation and publicity for the event, and the speech itself, do not promote the candidacy; and
There is no fundraising for the candidate.
(This should be used only in very limited circumstances because, as a practical matter, it is very difficult to avoid the appearance of endorsing the speaker's candidacy.)
3. Candidate forums, as long as:
All candidates seeking the same office are offered an equal opportunity to speak;
The organization does not indicate support of or opposition to a candidate;
The questions are unbiased and discuss a broad array of topics of interest to the public;
The candidates are not asked to agree or disagree with positions taken by the organization;
The moderator plays a neutral role and does not suggest approval or disapproval of candidates; and
The moderator expressly states that the forum is not an endorsement of any candidate and all views expressed are those of particular candidates and not the organization.
4. Candidate education, in the form of programs designed to educate candidates about particular issues, as long as they:
Do not include strategy advice;
Are available to all candidates; and
Are nonpartisan (do not favor or disfavor any political party).
5. Political activities of staff and board members in their individual capacities, including when staff and board members themselves run for office, as long as they:
Do not use the organization's financial resources, facilities, equipment, or personnel (e.g., do not use the organization's financial resources, facilities, equipment, or personnel).
not use work email or conduct the activity during work hours);
Make clear that actions taken or statements made are theirs and not the organization's; and
Create separate social media accounts for personal political and lobbying activity instead of using accounts that are also used for their work for the organization.
What about issue advocacy?
It is permissible to advocate on issues in an election year, but care must be taken to avoid linking issue advocacy to an election or a candidate. Here are some guidelines:
Do not promote candidates who agree with the organization's views on a particular issue.
Do not distribute candidate scorecards or seek candidate pledges on specific issues.
Do not provide messaging or polling information to political parties on specific issues.
Be cautious of distributing issue-oriented materials just before an election-make sure the materials are completely nonpartisan and do not preference a candidate or group of candidates.
Avoid urging people to vote based on a particular issue where the issue clearly divides the candidates or parties.
What about voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities?
There are many technical rules that apply to voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. You may not use Ford Foundation grant funds for such activities unless specifically approved as part of your grant activities in the proposal. Please consult your legal counsel.
Next Thursday, November 9, at the University of Medellin, the Territorial Dialogue will bring together a panel of profiles of academics, community leaders, artists, businessmen and public servants to discuss inequality from the perspective of the Colombian coffee region.
The panelists will be challenged to address the inequalities experienced in the four departments of this region: Antioquia, Risaralda, Quindío and Caldas. The discussion will take advantage of the experiences and knowledge of each one to reflect on three central themes: inequality in access to education, in access to decent work and the inequalities faced by young people in the country.
These are the panelists of this second face-to-face Territorial Dialogue:
Andrés García, economist and researcher at Universidad del Rosario in Bogotá. He is currently the director of the Observatory of Labor Inequality.
Andrea Carmona, activist, social manager, bridge builder and storyteller. She is part of the media outlet Le Cuento. She was present in the social outburst of 2019.
Yoiner Machado, artist and cultural manager. Creator and director of Unión Latina, an art academy that works from the dance in the commune 13 in Medellín.
Daniela Trejo, Secretary of Productivity and Competitiveness of Antioquia.
Elkin Echeverri, entrepreneur and businessman. Former director of Planning Ruta N. Director of the Eledé Foundation. He is currently writing a book on innovation and cities.
Paula Andrea Valencia, professor and researcher at the University of Medellín.
Allison Benson, moderator of the Dialogue. Director Reimaginemos.
In addition to the discussion, those attending the event will have access to the award-winning Colombian documentary film Indivisible, which has not yet been released. Reimaginemos will also give USD 700 in micro-grants to diverse dialogue initiatives on inequality proposed by those attending the event.
The Dialogues are unmissable opportunities, as they broaden the vision about inequalities in the different territories of the country. If you are interested in attending the conversation or watching the live transmission, register at this link: https://bit.ly/3FrAIVL
Find all the information about the 32 Territorial Dialogues at @reimaginemos.colombia
TREES, of the Universidad de los Andes, and the Program for the Economic Analysis of Mexico (PRAEM), of El Colegio de México, finance research at each of the universities to which they belong. This research is aimed at studying the causes and consequences of inequalities in Latin America. In order to promote the discussion of questions and share research advances, both initiatives organized four virtual Brown Bag Seminars that promote interaction between researchers from both institutions and countries.
The first meeting, on Friday, August 25, was led by Juan Camilo Cárdenas and César Mantilla. During this conversation, entitled “Informalities in the Global South: Towards a Research Agenda,” Cárdenas and Mantilla explored formality and informality within a range of labor relations. They also identified the costs and benefits of having formal and informal labor relations and outlined the methodological challenges of their research.
The second seminar, on Friday, September 29, was entitled: “The Impact of Transportation Platforms on the Labor Market: Evidence for Mexico”. Laura Juarez, PRAEM coordinator, spoke about her research exploring the rise of digital transportation platform labor in Latin America. Juarez considers it relevant to understand the benefits it can bring to workers, such as flexibility, along with the possible consequences, such as variable income or lack of social benefits. For this, he presented evidence from his ongoing research on the gradual entry of Uber in Mexican cities and its impact on people's labor variables.
For the third meeting, on Friday, October 27, Raymundo Campos and Aurora Ramírez, researchers from the Center for Economic Studies at El Colegio de México, led the session entitled: “Redistribution: how do we understand inequality for a new social pact?”.
If you are interested in the research being conducted by TREES and PRAEM and would like to participate in the Brown Bag Seminars next semester, 2024-I, subscribe to the TREES newsletter to receive invitations to these spaces.
TREES and the Program for the Economic Analysis of Mexico (PRAEM) of El Colegio de México organized three Brown Bag Seminars during the second half of 2023, to share agendas and progress of the research they are funding. As part of the Research component of TREES, the Brown Bag Seminars are intended to promote an interdisciplinary agenda, with different approaches, to explore the causes and consequences of inequalities in the region.
The first Brown Bag Seminar entitled “The Informalities of the Global South: Towards a Research Agenda” was held on Friday, August 25 through the Zoom platform. Juan Camilo Cárdenas, Professor at the Faculty of Economics of the Universidad de los Andes and responsible for the Outreach component of TREES, and César Mantilla, Professor at the Faculty of Economics of the Universidad del Rosario, discussed the following topics how to address questions of informality in the global south.
His seminar began with an introduction on informality, a structural and historical issue of countries in the global south. Cardenas commented on the possibility of approaching this phenomenon from new perspectives such as behavioral and experimental economics, as well as field observation. He also explained that approaching informality from a new perspective implies proposing new definitions and thinking about the possibility of the existence of virtuous informality, with benefits for society.
The authors argued that labor relations incorporate more economic agents and elements than is usually thought. The interactions between owners, management and workers include elements that determine whether the relationship is formal or informal. However, The researchers proposed new components that move away from the formal/informal dichotomy, such as respect, dignified treatment and trust, among others. These components are fundamental, but are not part of a formal contract. In addition, they pointed out that formal and informal arrangements can coexist within a single relationship, separating these concepts from legality. Adding new edges to relationships makes it possible to erase the dichotomous division between formality and informality and begin to think of them within a range of relationships.
In the social exchange between two people, there are different factors that determine whether the interaction is virtuous or detrimental. Mantilla identified three trade-offs, i.e., the trade-offs that occur between costs and benefits, which are present when the labor relationship is more formal or more informal. The first has to do with compliance rules. On one side is the legal contract and formal rules. On the other, trust. A formal employment relationship is governed by the contract, while an informal one relies on the trust between the two parties. The costs of these extremes are: greater exclusion at the formal end and the risk of disproportionate or illegal mechanisms when trust fails and the agreed arrangement is not complied with.
The second trade-off has to do with the reaction to uncertainty. At one end of the spectrum are social insurance mechanisms to protect the people who are part of the formal agreement in the face of any uncertainty. Rigidity, however, can generate costs to the relationship. At the other extreme is greater flexibility in the face of uncertainty, but at the cost of not having protection in exceptional circumstances.
The last trade-off is related to the asymmetry of how information is acquired for the employment relationship. On the one hand, information is acquired through formal documents that function as selection mechanisms for choosing with whom to create a relationship. The cost of this extreme is the exclusion of those people who have not had access to formal mechanisms to confirm their value. The other extreme has a more horizontal communication mechanism, through hearsay and a “voice to voice” of personal reputation. The disadvantage on this side of the spectrum is the possibility of misinformation.
Identify these trade-offs led Cardenas and Mantilla to propose that informality persists because, despite certain sacrifices, it also brings benefits to those who participate in these arrangements. For example, informality may be the best cradle for innovation because it is not constrained by the rigidity of formal arrangements.
The researchers posed two methodological challenges. First, how to account for the creation or destruction of value derived from informal and formal labor relations? This value has to do both with losses or gains in economic efficiency, but also in fairness. Secondly, how to define and measure informality? This element brings the challenge of how to generate experiments with informal workers if they prefer not to become visible to the State.
Cardenas and Mantilla proposed using the lens of behavioral economics to approach informality and explore what tools and prior knowledge are applicable in this research. Their agenda, then, consists of four elements. First, to improve the taxonomy with which we talk about labor relations and interactions between economic agents. Second, to stop viewing formality and informality in a divided manner. Thirdly, to explore how, through the trade-offs, Informality can generate economic value and justice. Finally, expand approaches to political economy and think about elements such as dignity, power, abuse and care.
The session ended with a space for questions and interventions from the audience. Participants from Uniandes and COLMEX shared their own perspectives on what they have learned from informality and added factors to consider in research. Among the comments, the challenges of taxonomic creation and moving away from divisive concepts were mentioned. The inclusion of other actors in the picture such as the State was also proposed, along with an assessment of their power and scope. The researchers were grateful for the interventions and commented on the importance of having other perspectives to enrich their work.
Access the full recording of the first Brown Bag Seminar here:
On November 15, we held the discussion “The Washington Consensus in Latin America: what did we learn and where are we going? It was held at the Universidad de los Andes, and was the first face-to-face activity of the alliance between TREES and the PRAEM (Program of Economic Analysis of Mexico) of El Colegio de México.
The purpose of the event was to reflect on the scope, effects and limitations for Latin America of the economic liberalization policies established 30 years ago in the Washington Consensus. The reforms that were part of this Consensus focused on promoting trade freedom and deregulation, thus limiting the incidence of the State in the market.
Despite the fact that these policies have led to macroeconomic stability in some countries of the continent, the challenges of inclusion, sustainability and increasing inequalities persist in Latin American countries, which has led to social unrest and significant political changes in some countries of the region. Achieving a deep and plural reflection on the decisions made in recent decades is essential to influence the creation of economic, political and social alternatives that will lead to attacking these persistent problems.
To achieve this goal, the discussion brought together four experts: Cecilia López, former Minister of State of Colombia, an expert on the country's inclusive economic and social policies. Lorenza Martínez, CEO of Actinver Bank, who has extensive experience in public and private financial institutions. Olga Lucía Acosta, member of the Board of Directors of Banco de la República de Colombia and expert in monetary and financial policies. Santiago Levy, head of the Employment Mission in Colombia, recognized for his contributions to the fight against poverty.
The conversation included questions to reflect on the achievements and legacy of the Washington Consensus in relation to institution building, reforms and public policies. It also explored what illusions have been left unfulfilled, along with the factors that possibly interfered with their realization. In addition, it analyzed the ways in which the paradigm proposed in the 1990s neglected factors of social and political reality.
On the other hand, more specific ideas were included regarding the weaknesses of current social policy, delayed objectives to reduce inequalities, climate change, mitigation policies, the challenges of central banks in Latin America, the change in the relationship between the public and private sectors to create economic alternatives and the most important lessons learned in the fight against poverty.
If you missed the conversation, you can watch the live webcast here:
