Localization of development research

WASHINGTON, D.C./NAIROBI — “Localization” has become a buzzword in international development circles, partly thanks to a push by the United States to shift more aid funding to local actors. But growing awareness of the importance of local expertise is not yet adequately reflected in most development research, which still regularly excludes researchers from lowand middle-income countries.

Economic and development research in the Global South is led almost exclusively by academics who do not live there. A 2021 study found that just 16 percent of the articles published in top development journals between 1990 and 2019 were authored by researchers based in developing countries, and only 9 percent of presenters at major development conferences were affiliated with universities in developing countries.

Moreover, a report by the Center for Global Development shows that local researchers can be left out of impact evaluations of development programs in health, education, and other sectors. While the number of research experts in low- and middle-income countries has grown, developing-country scholars remain underrepresented.

The exclusion of developing-country researchers reflects the failure within academia to regard local contexts. As recent analysis of academic racism has shown, research institutions and processes can reflect and exacerbate bias, prejudice, and discrimination. Their lack of diversity constrains research quality and impact, and impedes efforts to eradicate poverty, improve living standards, and promote prosperity for people around the world.

Researchers with deep knowledge of their countries and communities offer critical insights into local priorities and opportunities to inform policy decision-making. And contextual knowledge is not entirely dependent on geography: many in the diaspora can also provide valuable empirical insights for policy.

The Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP) — led by one of us (Kabubo-Mariara) — is an example of a Southern-led global organization that supports and promotes the work of local researchers to amplify the impact of high-quality evidence. PEP uses a “research coproduction” model, fostering collaborations among researchers and government and nongovernment stakeholders to shape research objectives and generate useful evidence.

Consequently, more than half of PEP’s projects since 2013 have influenced policy processes and decisions in target countries. For example, recommendations by local PEP researchers concerning the protection of rural women’s livelihoods against climate shocks have been integrated into Lesotho’s agricultural policy. And in Pakistan, PEP-supported research on the economic effects of the policy response to COVID-19 has informed the federal budget. In academic settings, over 40 percent of papers from PEP-supported projects have been published in international journals.

Another example is the Transfer Project, a multi-country research network launched by UNICEF, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill which brings together governments and local researchers studying the impact of cash transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The organization invests in long-term relationships with government officials to build trust, co-create research, align methods with the questions relevant to policymakers, and iterate programs.

Unfortunately, successful initiatives of this kind are still outliers. The most fruitful partnerships are those that enable local researchers and policymakers to generate, synthesize, and use evidence for policy needs by collaborating over time. But despite the growing interest in and capacity for long-term, trust-based partnerships, a large share of development-research funding continues to support one-off projects and short-term consultancies. As a result, many local research institutions face chronic funding challenges and other professional barriers.

To be sure, local expertise is not a silver bullet for combating poverty. But both evidence and experience show that researchers with firsthand knowledge of the countries studied can help identify more relevant questions, understand political constraints, and guide policymakers on how to spend limited public funds more effectively.

Funders in government, philanthropic foundations, universities, and other grant-making institutions are in a unique position to drive positive systemic change. To do so, they must build on existing support and momentum to provide the researchers closest to decision-makers with the agenda-setting power and resources. they need to get relevant information into the hands of those willing to use it.

“

Both evidence and experience show that researchers with firsthand knowledge of the countries studied can

help identify more relevant questions ...

”