On June 12, 2025, within the framework of the project Tracking the flow of research funding in the Global South for more transparent and inclusive science, and as a satellite activity of FOLEC at the X Latin American and Caribbean Conference of Social Sciences (CLACSO 2025), the event was held in Bogotá Strategic Consultation “Circulation of international funding in science and technology (North–South)”The meeting brought together experts from science and technology organizations, and academics, with the The objective is to reflect collectively on the current architecture of international funding for research, its impact on scientific agendas and the possibilities of building more transparent, inclusive and sovereign mechanisms for the Global South.
Designed as a consultative and collaborative day, the activity was structured around four key questions that guided the debate:

• What are the different types of funds? How do they compare to each other, and what proportion do they represent of total science and technology funding in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a focus on Colombia?
• Is data available on these funds? How can it be properly structured and presented to promote communication, transparency, and visibility?
• What is the relationship between different types of funding and the configuration of research agendas? In what aspects do they differ?
• How are actors from the Global South currently participating in the design of research agendas? Who are these actors, and how could their participation be expanded, considering initial stages and roles beyond implementation?

Each of these axes was introduced by expert individuals such as Alejandra Gonzalez (University of La Sabana), Efrén Romero (Colombian Observatory of Science and Technology), Daniel Stagno (Inter-American Development Bank) and Salim Chalela (National Planning Department of Colombia), and moderated by the project team.
The opening was carried out by Matías Alcántara of FOLEC, while the methodological framework of the project and the presentation of preliminary results were carried out by Ismael Rafols y Rodrigo Costas, researchers from the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University. The session fostered a substantive debate on dependency patterns in the circulation of funds, the low participation of the South in agenda setting, and the need to strengthen data infrastructure for more autonomous decision-making.
These discussions made it possible to identify some key points of consensus, such as the need to critically analyze the use of metrics to highlight the coherence between resource allocation and areas of knowledge; to focus on universities that concentrate the largest volumes of funding and projects; and to map collaborative networks that, in many cases, reproduce pre-existing asymmetrical dynamics. The importance of identifying the gaps between institutions with installed capacity and those seeking to integrate into the science and technology ecosystem, as well as recognizing that, often, it is individuals – and not institutions – who monopolize available funds.
In relation to types of fundsThe growing diversity and complexity of international funding was highlighted, including public, private, and mixed sources, funds geared toward research or institutional development, and educational programs that also end up supporting research projects. lack of clear typologiesThis, coupled with the ambiguity between development cooperation and R&D, makes analysis and comparison difficult. Furthermore, it was evident that a large portion of the funds are channeled through institutions in the Global North, which limits the autonomy of local actors and perpetuates dependency relationships.
Regarding the data availableIt was noted that, while useful sources exist such as Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Lens.org and OpenAlex, records on funding They are incomplete and disjointedMany funding flows are not adequately documented or depend on individual efforts. It was proposed to advance the development of interactive visualizations and data infrastructures that would allow for the systematization and more transparent communication of this information. The need to promote mandatory reporting of funding in academic publications was also emphasized.
It was emphasized that the funds should be understood as both instruments as results of political and epistemic negotiationsAnd that attention should be focused on the configuration of these agendas. In this sense, the need was raised to look at “the agenda behind the fund” to make visible the criteria, actors, and interests that influence its formulation, and thus move towards greater participation of the Global South in strategic decision-making.
At FOLEC, we reaffirm that making these funding flows visible and collectively debating them is a necessary condition for transforming the rules of the game that condition scientific development in the Global South. This strategic consultation was another step in building a more sovereign, just, and transparent science.

---

Strategic Consultation: «International Funding Flows in Science and Technology (North–South)»

On June 12, 2025, within the framework of the project Tracking the Circulation of Research Funding in the Global South for a More Transparent and Inclusive Science, and as a satellite activity of FOLEC at the 10th Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Social Sciences (CLACSO 2025), the Strategic Consultation «International Funding Flows in Science and Technology (North–South)» was held in Bogotá. The event brought together experts from science and technology organizations and academics, with the goal of collectively reflecting on the current architecture of international research funding, its impact on scientific agendas, and the possibilities of building more transparent, inclusive, and sovereign mechanisms for the Global South.

Designed as a consultative and collaborative day, the activity was structured around four key questions that guided the debate:

• What are the different types of funds? How do they compare to one another, and what proportion do they represent within total science and technology funding in Latin America and the Caribbean, with a focus on Colombia?
  
• Are there data available on these funds? How can they be built and presented in ways that foster communication, transparency, and visibility?
  
• What is the relationship between the different types of funds and the shaping of research agendas? In what aspects do they differ?
  
• How are actors from the South currently participating in the design of research agendas? Who are these actors and how could their participation be expanded, considering early stages and roles beyond implementation?
  

Each of these themes was introduced by experts such as Alejandra Gonzalez (University of La Sabana), Efrén Romero (Colombian Observatory of Science and Technology), Daniel Stagno (Inter-American Development Bank), and Salim Chalela (National Planning Department of Colombia), and moderated by the project team.

The session opened with remarks from Matías Alcántara from FOLEC, while the project's methodological framework and presentation of preliminary results were led by Ismael Rafols and Rodrigo Costas, researchers at the Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) of Leiden University. The session fostered substantive debate on patterns of dependence in the circulation of funding, the limited participation of the South in agenda-setting, and the need to strengthen data infrastructure for more autonomous decision-making.

These discussions made it possible to identify some key points of consensus, such as the need to critically analyze the use of metrics to reveal alignment between resource distribution and areas of knowledge; to focus on universities that concentrate larger volumes of funding and projects; and to map collaborative networks that, in many cases, reproduces pre-existing asymmetric dynamics. The importance of identifying gaps between institutions with installed capacity and those seeking to integrate into the science and technology ecosystem was also emphasized, along with recognizing that individuals—rather than institutions—often monopolize the available funds.

Regarding the types of funds, participants highlighted the growing diversity and complexity of international funding, which includes public, private, and mixed sources; funds oriented toward research or institutional development; and educational programs that ultimately support research projects. The lack of clear typologies, combined with the ambiguity between development cooperation and R&D, hinders their analysis and comparison. It also became evident that a significant portion of funds is channeled through institutions in the North, which limits the autonomy of local actors and perpetuates dependency relationships.

With respect to available data, it was noted that while there are useful sources such as Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Lens.org, and OpenAlex, records on funding are often incomplete and fragmented. Many funding flows are poorly documented or rely on individual efforts. Participants proposed advancing the development of interactive visualizations and building data infrastructures that systematize and communicate this information more transparently. The need to promote the mandatory disclosure of funding sources in academic publications was also emphasized.

It was emphasized that funding should be understood both as an instrument and as a result of political and epistemic negotiations, and that attention must be focused on the shaping of research agendas. In this sense, participants called for a closer look at the “agenda behind the fund” in order to reveal the criteria, actors, and interests involved in their formulation—and to move toward greater participation of the South in strategic decision-making.

At FOLEC, we reaffirm that making these funding flows visible and debating them collectively is a necessary condition for transforming the rules of the game that shape scientific development in the Global South. This strategic consultation was another step in building a more sovereign, fair, and transparent science.