education and the far right: the case of Javier Milei’s government in Argentina

Introduction: The Recent Electoral Success of Far-Right in Argentina

The purpose of this article is to present an initial analysis of the proposals and strategies of the new Argentine far-right libertarian government in the field of education. By examining the particularities and complexities of the Argentine case, we aim to contribute to a better understanding and mapping of the global dissemination of ideas, agendas, and educational policies promoted by far-right political actors. The far right constitutes an international, multifaceted entity with a complex approach to education politics. Its analysis requires an equally international, multifaceted, and cross-disciplinary effort (Giudici, 2021). These global trends assume specific and distinct forms and characteristics in each region and country but involve common logics and transnational actors.

The paper presents research results focused on the educational strategies of far-right political forces and governments in Latin America, with a specific case study on Javier Milei. From a critical theory perspective, the general objective is to investigate what Javier Milei’s government is doing in the educational field and its political, cultural, and social consequences. How do they build power? How do they generate adhesions and consensus? Why and how are far-right worldviews becoming popular? We propose to analyze the complex relationship between politics and education.

In recent years, the advance, growth, and resurgence (Juliana, 2021) of far-right political movements have become increasingly evident and have constituted a global phenomenon. As Forti (2021) argues, “the far right is a real threat” (p. 231), and its analysis has shifted from being solely a field of historical studies to becoming a contemporary agenda issue (Traverso, 2021). In its various forms, the far right emerges as a response and a potential way to reconstruct a perceived lost order, appealing to large segments of modern societies (Stefanoni, 2021). These far-right political actors are authoritarian, anti-democratic, and racist. They abhor rights and are outraged by equality. It is a big global family and, as Forti (2021) says, since the family is broad, they have commonalities but also differences in each particular context.

Argentina is one of the countries currently experiencing a shift to the far right. On the same day as the 40th anniversary of the return to democracy after the last civil-military dictatorship, economist Javier Milei – until then a peculiar television celebrity – became, with the support of the right-wing party led by former President Mauricio Macri, the president of the country for the 2023–2027 term. From being a media personality, he became the most important figure in Argentine politics. Coming from the Libertarian Party, established only in 2018, and after being elected as a national congress member in 2021 alongside Victoria Villarruel – now the vice president – he became the president of the country in just two years.

Although his tenure has only just begun, the speed and intensity of his actions make it evident that the Milei government intends to undertake a profound, unprecedented, and radical restructuring and downsizing of the state. In the few months this government has been in power, it has shown a strong inclination toward dismantling the national state, undermining the rule of law, and manifesting a colonialist submission. Unlike other far-right presidents, he is not a nationalist. He views himself as part of a continuity of political projects advanced by the elites, including the civic-military-ecclesiastical dictatorship and the neoliberal/neoconservative and shadowy government of Carlos Menem. Both Milei and his vice president Villarruel – who represents a revisionist perspective on the crimes committed during the last dictatorship – explicitly endorse central aspects of Argentina’s repressive and violent history. Milei defines himself as a liberal-libertarian and anarcho-capitalist, and is determined to dismantle the state. He embodies a political project of national demolition and refoundation, and a form of cannibal capitalism (Fraser, 2023) that seeks to consume democracy.

One of the main questions that has permeated the academic field since his victory is why he won. How this was possible? Why did a significant sector of Argentine society, cutting across class, gender, and age, decide to opt for ultraliberal and ultraconservative proposals?¹

They have transitioned from the fringes to mainstream prominence, organizing, expanding, and gaining legitimacy. They have garnered support and built representations. Their so-called political-cultural battle has significantly influenced electoral outcomes. They have skillfully utilized television and social media to disseminate their ideas and positions.

They have attracted large sectors of the population by promising to undertake a mission or crusade to save them. They mobilize, persuade, and offer visions of the future in a context marked by despair, disillusionment, and a lack of utopian ideals. They exploit the most urgent needs and deficiencies of existing liberal democracies. They connect with the discontented and frustrated sectors of society.

Positioned as self-styled rebels against the established system, they portray themselves as victims of the political class – “the caste,” according to Milei – and criticize traditional right-wing organizations, despite actually defending the status quo and the interests of the elite.

They advocate for violent and demagogic policies, employing rhetoric filled with hate, racism, and sexism, and promoting inequalities. Most alarmingly, they stretch the limits of acceptable discourse, thought, and action to challenge democratic principles. Operating at the edges of democracy, which they perceive as excessive, they are prepared to use violence to achieve their objectives.

Now, more than six months into his term, in addition to the initial questions, a new one arises: How does he maintain his legitimacy? Why are these positions and proposals appealing to certain segments of society? How do they garner support? In this, education is key.

A First Approach to the Proposals and Strategies of the new Argentinian Far-Right Libertarian Government in the Field of Education

Milei’s government is, as Harvey (2009) describes, shifting the tectonic plates. It is disrupting the values and meanings that have organized Argentine society since the post-dictatorship era, pushing people into a state of sustained uncertainty that doesn’t relent, leaving them unable to predict what will happen even tomorrow. The government is applying what Klein (2008) conceptualizes as “the shock doctrine”. The crisis in which the country is immersed served as the justification he leveraged during his campaign to win, and now in office, he is using it to implement an economic shock. Milei continuously administers ‘electric shocks’ until they short-circuit the capacity to respond or, as Chicago School economist Milton Friedman – father of this doctrine and Milei’s ideological mentor – would put it, induce psychological reactions that facilitate the adjustment process. Under the guise of responding to the crisis, ferocious economic adjustment measures are imposed, generating further crises to create a radical and permanent transformation through drastic cuts to rights, such as the right to education.

As highlighted in the call for this issue, education is regarded as one of the strategic arenas for far-right actors. Far-right government projects necessarily require strategies of consensus and stabilization to secure their legitimacy, and in this context, education plays a crucial role. One of the primary fields where far-right governments engage and develop their political and “cultural battle,” as this government calls it, is in education (Chait, 2023). As Apple (1996) argues, education, in general, “is one of the most important places in which different groups, with their different political, economic and cultural conceptions, try to give a definition of what the socially legitimate means and objectives should be for a society” (p. 31). This idea extends a long critical tradition, conceptualized by Gramsci (1981), which suggests that political domination is not achieved solely through social relations of exploitation – constituting simple domination – but rather through a broader project of political and cultural hegemony.

Indeed, while sometimes other reasons are advanced to explain why contemporary societies do not align with what is supposed to be their organic, monistic and hierarchical order – such as the media, psychological or health problems – the causal role of schooling and education takes center stage in the analyzed organizations’ narratives. (Giudici, 2021, p. 9)

However, the far right’s influence on education has not been a central focus of study within the educational field. As Giudici (2021) notes, “educationalists have largely been absent from this endeavor” (p. 1). While there is research addressing the issue from other social science disciplines, these studies often do not delve into the specificities of education, as their focus lies elsewhere. Additionally, some studies have examined the recent shift towards the far right in education from a European perspective (Espeland Berg et al., 2023; Giudici, 2021; Gruber & Schnell, 2023; Mattei & Bulli, 2023; Neumann & Rudnicki, 2023; Rasmussen, 2023) and in the Brazilian context (Alves et al., 2021; Azevedo & Robertson, 2022; Segatto et al., 2022; Yannoulas, 2024). However, given the relatively short time since Milei’s rise to power, there has been no research specifically focused on the far right in education as a new phenomenon. The Argentine case, therefore, presents a fertile and highly relevant area for scientific inquiry, as well as a socially necessary one.

We employed Ball’s theoretical-methodological perspective to describe, interpret, and analyze the educational policies and actions of Milei’s government. This approach focuses on outlining and dissecting “the policy text” (Ball, 2012, 2015), which refers to the official discourse of the state and its intended outcomes for “enactment”. This occurs when policies are implemented in schools, where they are transformed into actions and mediated, questioned, or redefined by educational actors. The interest is in exploring the intent and directions that Milei’s government seeks to pursue with its educational project, recognizing that policy is never adopted linearly, and that processes of interpretation and translation always take place.

The organization, classification, and analysis of scientific data were conducted applying Grounded Theory, specifically the Constant Comparative Method (CCM) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The CCM is a qualitative research tool that employs a systematic set of procedures to develop theory inductively from empirical data. It aims to generate theory through a comparative and inductive process. The analysis was focused on: a) the electoral platform; b) the decree 70/2023 “Bases para la reconstrucción de la economía argentina” (Foundations for the Reconstruction of the Argentine Economy); c) the “Proyecto de Ley de Bases y Puntos de Partida para la Libertad de los Argentinos” (Law of Foundations and Starting Points for the Freedom of Argentines); d) all Milei’s speeches to date; e) a selection of interviews with the president on radio and television; and f) a selection of his social media publications.

It is important to clarify that this article was written in the wake of the first months of Milei government. It primarily focuses on the analysis of the president’s speeches and interviews regarding his perspectives on education and the educational system, both before and after assuming the presidency, as well as a series of government documents that reveal the direction of his policies. However, due to the elapsed time, we are unable to delve into the contradictions of his rhetoric and policies, as they have not yet been fully implemented.

From the analysis of the statements and actions of Milei’s government over these past months, we identify the following strategies in education: 1) A war against public education; 2) A cultural battle; 3) The concept of teachers as enemies; 4) The liberalization and privatization of education; 5) Anarcho-education; and 6) The dismantling of the public university and scientific system.

A war Against Public Education

Education has become an obsession and an urgent cause for the far right. They view it as a battleground where the future of the countries will be determined (Chait, 2023). To date, the educational measures implemented by Milei’s government have focused on dismantling public and free education. It has declared war on the system. Central to his political and pedagogical project is the eradication of the State-Centralized Public Education System (SIPCE), which represents the educational system established by the Nation-State (Puiggrós, 1990). As part of its policy to revert to pre-modern historical precedents, this administration does not consider a public, state-run, national education system or education as a right as part of its agenda.

During the election campaign, Milei, as a highly media-savvy figure, gave countless interviews on prime-time television programs in Argentina and Latin America. His statements on education frequently criticized public education and proposed solutions centered around commercialization and privatization, such as vouchers. For Milei, the market is the effective mechanism for regulating life, unlike the public sector and the state, which he describes as obsolete, inefficient, corrupt, and flawed. In an interview, he stated: “State intervention has only served to deteriorate the system. Privatization and the market will allow institutions to compete and provide better services”.²

When the government took office in December 2023, the first measure enacted by the presidency was to eliminate the Ministry of Education, downgrading it to a Secretariat within a new ministry called the Ministry of Human Capital. Until then, the only government that had demoted the Ministry of Education to a Secretariat was the dictatorship of Juan Carlos Onganía (1966-1970), who came to power through a coup d’état. Milei’s decision mirrors this historical precedent, raising concerns about the authoritarian, and arguably neo-fascist, nature of his new administration.

Education is becoming one of the major battlegrounds at the national level. As part of this struggle, the government is defunding public universities and scientific research, as we will discuss below. In response to this attack, Argentine society has mounted the largest university mobilization in history. Over a million people took to the streets across the country to defend public universities and demand increased funding.

A Cultural Battle

Milei’s political-ideological project is deeply pedagogical, and his pedagogical project is profoundly political. On several occasions, Milei has described their struggle as ethical and moral, positioning the cultural battle as the core of their political dispute. In a reversal of Gramsci’s approach, they aim to construct a common sense and worldview rooted in liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. “It’s doing the same as they did, following Gramsci’s guidelines. To enter culture, to enter education, to enter communication, which is what they did because, despite all the chaos they created, they managed to win the cultural battle.”³

One of the central elements in this cultural battle is the characterization of the public education system as a space for “indoctrination” and a “brainwashing mechanism”.⁴ In a television interview, Milei described public education as a “center of Marxist indoctrination”.⁵ This perspective is not unique to Milei; it is derived from Friedman – one of his political-ideological mentors – as well as from global far-right figures, particularly American academics like Benjamin Weingarten. Weingarten argues that “it is the schools – where our children spend much of their waking hours – that have a disproportionate influence over American society, seeding every other institution that has succumbed to left-wing ideological capture.”⁶

Within this characterization of the education system as a space for indoctrination, universities hold a central role. At the beginning of the year, when the legislative session formally started, the President delivered a speech in which he stated: “The creation of universities has become just another political business, and in teacher training colleges and institutes, there is a proliferation of left-wing, openly anti-capitalist and anti-liberal curricula in a country that needs more capitalism and more freedom”.⁷

The curriculum is another primary target of the far right and Milei. They argue that school content is biased against liberal and family values and serves as a tool for indoctrination. In his speech at the opening of the 2024 school year at his former school, Milei stated, “Public education is a brainwashing mechanism, whether state or privately managed, because when they determine the content, it is very red”.⁸

In response to this diagnosis, they are attempting to control the content taught in schools. They particularly aim to restrict and challenge narratives on human rights and gender equality. The electoral platform of ‘La Libertad Avanza’ – the president’s political coalition – proposes increasing hours for subjects like mathematics, language, science, and technology while eliminating mandatory comprehensive sex education across all levels of education.

The Concept of Teachers as Eenemies

In the war against public education and the broader cultural battle, teachers and their unions have become central targets in the presidential offensive. Constantly, the administration criticizes the quality of teachers, attacking and blaming them for the problems and shortcomings in education. Their objective is to dismantle the historically established social consensus and to impose discipline through training, evaluation (control), and changes in working conditions.

In the election platform, one proposal was to modify the Teachers’ Statute to allow the possibility of dismissals. Upon assuming the presidency, Milei sanctioned an – unconstitutional – National Emergency Decree (DNU, in spanish)⁹ to modify, replace or repeal more than 100 existing laws. This DNU declared education an “essential service”.¹⁰ The designation of education as an essential service has two primary objectives. First, to limit, restrict and even prohibit teachers’ right to strike. Second, to delegitimize teachers as part of a strategic project to construct a new common sense. In the inaugural speech of the legislative sessions, he explained this decision, stating: “That is why we included education as an essential service in the decree of necessity and urgency, which will take the gun out of the hand of the unions and force them to provide at least 70% of the educational service during any strike.”¹¹ He added, “In an Argentina where children cannot read and write, we can no longer allow Baradel¹² and his friends to use students as hostages to negotiate with provincial governments.”¹³

After the sanction of the DNU, the presidency submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the so-called ‘Proyecto de Ley de Bases y Puntos de Partida para la Libertad de los Argentinos’.¹⁴ As its title suggests, this bill seeks to introduce legal modifications in all areas of our social life, including education, specifically targeting the laws that currently govern education in Argentina.¹⁵ Although it was not approved, and despite modifications made by the government to gain approval still under debate, the content of the chapter on education allows us to analyse the policy text, in terms of Ball. Regarding teaching, the law proposes granting “permission for non-teaching professionals to participate in the educational process.” In other words, professionals without pedagogical training could be allowed to teach. This project also promotes, in one of its articles (Art. 545), the following: “(j) Evaluate teachers entering the profession by means of an examination certifying the skills and knowledge acquired. Periodic evaluation shall be a condition and an incentive to be able to work as a teacher in the country”. These punitive evaluation mechanisms and changes in working conditions have been implemented in other parts of the world, such as in the United States through the No Child Left Behind Act – a U.S. Act of Congress promoted by George W. Bush – which allows for teacher dismissals due to poor performance and the privatization of public institutions through evaluation.

Other components of the offensive against teachers include the degradation of salaries through the elimination of the National Fund for Teacher Incentives (FONID) – an additional salary implemented since the 1990s – and the failure to convene the National Teachers’ Paritaria, the forum for establishing wage bargaining levels in each of the country’s jurisdictions.¹⁶

The Liberalization and Privatization of Education

Another strategy identified in Milei’s political-pedagogical project is the liberalization and privatization of education. This strategy is based on the idea that, in response to the educational crisis, market forces should regulate education to achieve the so-called “free choice” of schooling, a concept highly promoted by the far-right.

The central proposal of their program for the liberalization and privatization of education is the implementation of a voucher system. The electoral platform explicitly suggested a “Voucher system or education cheque” in one of its points, and in another, it proposes “decentralising education by giving the budget to parents instead of allocating it to the Ministry, i.e. financing demand”.¹⁷

The voucher system is an education proposal developed by Milton Friedman, the founding economist of the Chicago School, who, as we have already mentioned, is one of Milei’s political-ideological references. In its ideal form, this system involves the government subsidising demand rather than supply. Instead of funding schools directly, money is given to parents or students, allowing them to choose which school – public or private – they wish to attend or pay for. Public schools are then funded based on the payments received from each student, creating a competitive education market. In this model, the school becomes a business, and the student a customer to be competed for. School rankings emerge as a way to attract more customers. The best-ranked schools are the most expensive, selective and, consequently, discriminatory. Education shifts from being a right to becoming a commodity.

On the road towards the intended ‘voucherization’ of education, Javier Milei’s government announced the creation of the “Educational Vouchers” assistance program.¹⁸ According to the resolution, “it will consist of a temporary benefit for families whose children attend privately managed public educational institutions at the initial, primary and secondary levels with state support”. This benefit “will consist of a sum of money” that “those who exercise parental responsibility” will receive. The program began implementation in March of this year. Although this program had not yet been implemented at the time of writing this article, we can affirm that it is not the “ideal version” but rather a state subsidy to help families pay for private school fees.

Anarcho-Education

In addition to his adherence to Chicago School liberalism, Milei is also influenced by the Austrian School of Economics and anarcho-capitalism. In educational terms, this translates into a fierce critique of the state’s primary role in education. They question whether the state should be responsible for educating children, arguing that this responsibility should lie with families and the market. According to anarcho-capitalism, “there is no doubt that free education requires, at all times, separating education from the state; clearly favoring the implementation of private markets in free education, markets where there is no coercion whatsoever, neither in the form nor in content, and where complete control of education rests providers and demanders of education” (Nogales Lozano, 2012, p. 178). As Filmus (2024) analyses, anarcho-capitalism argues that “schooling must be opposed because it is a tool of the state to indoctrinate children and young people with collectivist or populist ideas. Therefore, the first task is to remove the state from education”.

The solution they propose to counteract state interference in education is homeschooling. They see homeschooling as a way to escape the lethal cocktail of the state managing their children’s education (Giudici, 2021). Relying on the educational experiences of virtual education developed during the pandemic, they advocate for the possibility of distance or homeschooling. The aforementioned ‘Ley de Bases y Puntos de Partida para la Libertad de los Argentinos’ includes among its guidelines: “hybrid distance studies as an alternative to face-to-face education from the second cycle of the primary level onwards for minors, young people and adults, may be taught in the different educational modalities”.¹⁹ In other words, it legalizes the option for children to no longer attend school. This also opens the door for corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook – among others – that have already infiltrated public education (Wanschelbaum, 2023) to potentially replace schools with their digital platforms.

This questioning of the state’s responsibility for education is, as Filmus (2024) argues, a distinct characteristic of Milei’s government and unprecedented so far.

Not only does it not consider the education system important for the economic model, but it also does perceive it as necessary to transmit its ideology and values. Unlike other governments, even those with a neoliberal or even authoritarian perspective, it does not trust the school, the teachers. Or the school curriculum as potential carriers of the cultural values it wants to disseminate. (Filmus 2024)

The Dismantling of the Public University and Scientific System

In just four months, the Milei government has cut funding for public higher education and the public scientific-technological system by more than 70%.²⁰ This has raised concerns about the continuity of university policies and scientific production, affecting both the functioning of institutions and organizations²¹ as well as working and study conditions.

In public universities, the reduced budget makes it difficult to maintain the general operating service beyond the middle of the year. Additionally, teaching and non-teaching salaries are decreasing with wage stagnation and sustained exponential inflation.²² Furthermore, study grants have also been cut. This policy challenges the history of the Argentine university system, which has aimed to guarantee the right to education through mass and free education. Opposing this right has both an economic and political aim, as it seeks to drive the socio-cultural transformation of Argentina. The goal is to undermine the university’s influence both academically and through its scientific-cultural engagement with local communities. Additionally, it targets the critical thinking and political activism that occur within universities. This is evident through the constant accusations of “indoctrination” hurled at professors, students, and rectors, who have been incorporated as part of the ‘narrative of internal enemies’, what they call “the caste”, with the complicity of the hegemonic media. This media distorts reality daily and exposes researchers, professors, and students.²³

In national science and technology organizations, the severe budget cuts – which affect the reduction of postgraduate scholarships and the hiring of new researchers and technicians – ²⁴ are accompanied by the dismissal of qualified staff. This policy restricts sovereign productive capacities in favor of a policy known as “turnkey purchasing”. Instead of generating knowledge to develop autonomously, based on the needs of Argentinians and those of their respective regions, the dominant sectors import the necessary scientific and technological knowledge, thereby deepening dependency.

In addition, it involves overturning decades of scientific and technological accumulation in areas as diverse and essential as meteorology, paleontology, energy, satellite technology, and geology, to name a few related to the national economic potential. Additionally, it restricts the critical capacities to address the socio-historical problems of the Argentinian people.

Finally, it is important to note that the government’s intentions to empty, intervene and close universities and scientific-technological organizations faced significant resistance. The most notable moment was the historic mobilization on April 23, 2024, in which over a million people protested against the aforementioned policies. It remains to be seen what will happen after the mobilization.

Conclusion

In the article, we aimed to describe the strategies in education identified during the initial months of the far-right government in Argentina. These strategies include: a war against public education; a cultural battle; the concept of teachers as enemies; the liberalization and privatization of education; anarcho-education; and the dismantling of the public university and scientific system. The orientations and actions of Milei’s educational policies aim to undermine education as a right. They align with the trends of international far-right forces in education.

These guidelines and orientations of educational policy mark the beginning of a political-pedagogical project that has been evolving – in dispute – since the civic-military-ecclesiastical dictatorship to the present. However, it introduces unprecedented components that propose a structural transformation and radical reconfiguration concerning the state hegemony in education. Public education and science in Argentina are under attack and at risk of disappearing.

 

References

Apple, M. (1996). El conocimiento oficial: La educación democrática en una era conservadora. Paidós.

Alves, M., Segatto, C., & y Pineda, A. (2021). Cambios en la política educativa brasileña y auge del populismo de derecha. British Education Research Journal, 47(2), 332–354.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3699

Azevedo, M. L. N., & Robertson, S. L. (2022). Populismo autoritario en Brasil. Globalización, Sociedades y Educación, 20(2), 151–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1955663

Ball, S. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803301

Ball, S. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279

Balsa, J. (2024). ¿Por qué ganó Milei?: Disputas por la hegemonía y la ideología en Argentina. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Chait, J. (2023, May 8). Indoctrination nation: Convinced that schools are brainwashing kids to be left-wingers, conservatives are seizing control of the American classroom. New York Magazine.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/desantis-florida-trump-education-politics.html

Espeland Berg, A., Jungblut, J., & Jupskås, A. (2023). We don’t need no education? Education policies of Western European populist radical right parties. West European Politics, 46(7), 1312–1342.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2177010

Filmus, D. (2024, February 11). Anarcoeducación: ¿cómo es la educación que quiere Milei? Diario Página 12.
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/712019-anarcoeducacion-como-es-la-educacion-que-quiere-milei

Forti, S. (2021). Extrema derecha 2.0: Qué es y cómo combatirla. Siglo XXI.

Fraser, N. (2023). Capitalismo canibal. Siglo XXI.

Giudici, A. (2021). Seeds of authoritarian opposition: Far-right education politics in post-war Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 20(2), 121–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120947893

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967) El descubrimiento de la teoría de base. Aldine publishing Company.

Gramsci, A. (1981) Cuadernos de la cárcel. Era.

Gruber, O., & Schnell, P. (2023). Sticking to the core or going beyond? The Austrian freedom party’s educational approach in a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Contemporary European Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2221188

Harvey, D. (2009, February). Why the U.S. stimulus package is bound to fail. [Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey].
davidharvey.org

Klein, N. (2008). La doctrina del shock. El auge del capitalismo del desastre. Paidós.

Mattei, P., & Bulli, G. (2023). Educational policy agenda, ideological transformation and radical right populism: The case of the education-identity nexus of the Northern League in Italy, 1994-2018. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2212598

Neumann, E., & Rudnicki, P. (2023). Populist radical-right governments in Central-Eastern Europe and education policy-making: A comparison of Hungary and Poland. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2211935

Nogales Lozano, F. (2012) La educación desde la perspectiva de la Escuela Austriaca de Economía, Procesos de mercado: revista europea de economía política, 9(1), 155-210.

Rasmussen, P. (2023). Right-wing populist education policy in a social democratic welfare state context, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2023.2199144

Segatto, C. I., Alves, M. A., & Pineda, A. (2022). Populismo y religión en Brasil: La visión desde la política educativa. Social Policy and Society, 21(4), 560–574.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474642100004X

Puiggrós, A. (1990). Sujetos, disciplina y curriculum en los orígenes del sistema educativo argentino (1885–1916). Galerna.

Stefanoni, P. (2021). ¿La rebeldía se volvió de derecha? Siglo XXI.

Traverso, E. (2021). Las nuevas caras de la derecha: ¿Por qué funcionan las propuestas vacías y el discurso enfurecido de los antisistema y cuál es su potencial político real? Siglo XXI.

Wanschelbaum, C. (2023). Derecha y educación: Deslegitimación y colonización de la educación pública durante el gobierno de Macri. Revista IRICE, (44), 52–71.
https://doi.org/10.35305/revistairice.vi44.1585

Yannoulas, S. C. (2024). Chaves analíticas para a compreensão do projeto educacional da nova direita: Estratégias essenciais e particularidades brasileiras. Revista Educación, Política Y Sociedad, 9(1), 8–41.
https://doi.org/10.15366/reps2024.9.1.001

Recommended Citation

Wanschelbaum, C., Giniger, N., & Viñuela Flores, G. (2024). Education and the far right: The case of Javier Milei’s government in Argentina . On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 7(20).
https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2024.20.1

Do you want to comment on this article? Please send your reply to editors@oneducation.net. Replies will be processed like invited contributions. This means they will be assessed according to standard criteria of quality, relevance, and civility. Please make sure to follow editorial policies and formatting guidelines.