Response to interpellation 2023/24:20 on the reduction of support for development research

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Olle Thorell has asked me a number of questions concerning Sida's funding of development research.

I want to begin by stating that the government is positive towards research and the efforts that the research community makes. Investments in research and innovation are necessary to build new knowledge and competence and to create competitiveness, growth, and welfare. It is against this background that the government justifies that the total Swedish support for research in Sweden amounted to approximately 46.8 billion kronor in 2023.

The Swedish Research Council has a research grant of approximately 7.9 billion to distribute to, among other things, research activities and various research projects. The aid-financed part constitutes a very small part of the Swedish Research Council's total funds for research.

It is important for the government that a phase-out of the aid-funded part occurs responsibly, which is why it is scheduled over three years until the end of 2026. The researchers who have already been granted funds from the aid budget via the Swedish Research Council will therefore be able to complete their research projects. The Swedish Research Council will be awarded funds during the years 2024-2026 to ensure this.

Development cooperation within research will continue to be conducted through Sida, the Folke Bernadotte Academy, and within the Nordic Africa Institute. Sida's part of the government's strategy for Sweden's development cooperation within research for poverty reduction and sustainable development this year amounts to 440 million kronor.

I want to emphasize that there are still opportunities to apply for funding within the framework of other calls from the Swedish Research Council. I welcome all our outstanding researchers in various fields to continue the work of keeping Sweden at the forefront of research and innovation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I am not satisfied, of course. It is not entirely unexpected in interpellation debates that the interpellator wants to know more. There are several question marks to be sorted out.

I want to start by saying that it is clear that we all understand that the support for Ukraine must be prioritized. We understand that aid policy and various budget items must change over time, and reprioritizations must be made. We are all in complete agreement on the support for Ukraine.

But the way the government has proceeded with the chainsaw in development research is truly remarkable. To cut the appropriations for research cooperation by more than half, from 960 million kronor to 440 million kronor, is not only tone-deaf, but it also pulls the rug out from under support for research and higher education in poor countries and for support for international and regional research programs of importance for these countries and for meeting common challenges.

The decision that was made in June, some day before Midsummer, to isolate Sweden and weaken our position in international cooperation when the Swedish Research Council's entire funding for development research was withdrawn, meant that ongoing preparatory processes had to be interrupted. It affected hundreds of researchers, and thousands of hours of work were wasted. The anger was very great. It is not just me – a lone, angry Social Democrat – who complains about this, but all 606 researchers signed a critical debate article in Aftonbladet where they pleaded for the government to reconsider.

What is it then that is at stake? Well, it is that young Swedish researchers should be able to engage in minor field studies. The possibilities of obtaining recruitment services in the UN system as a junior professional officer are severely limited when these resources are not available. This is actually a death blow for young, engaged Swedish students and researchers when it comes to getting a foot in the door in development and sustainability research. Sweden loses position in the world as a result of this.

The image of Sweden is being negatively affected. We are also affected ourselves. A telling example is that the two world-leading Swedish researchers when it comes to African swine fever - a swine fever that has hit my constituency; the forest around Fagersta is completely closed off due to this swine fever - have become world-leading precisely thanks to the development research grants that are now disappearing. It is not possible today to say which fantastic researchers are being hindered in their development through the cuts, but the cuts undoubtedly have a negative effect. They also have a negative effect on the image of Sweden as a research nation.

I intended to repeat a couple of my questions to the Minister and give him a chance to answer. Will the Minister ensure that more money is added to the appropriation for research work in upcoming budgets so as not to impair Sweden's ability to support and contribute to knowledge for development in the work of meeting acute global challenges?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This has also been a media-covered matter. Especially the question of political steering has been highlighted, and I believe it was included in the interpellation as well.

Higher education should be free from political steering, and we should have free research. This is said by many debaters and also by debaters within academia. "That withdrawing funding for development research risks being seen as political steering," it says in the interpellation.

Mr. Speaker! It is political steering. It was also spot-on political steering to introduce this earmarked grant.

A politically steered appropriation is withdrawn - an appropriation that was, from the beginning, a good example of political steering. Then one complains about political steering when the same appropriation is withdrawn. But one did not complain when it was once introduced. Why not? Perhaps because one likes grants, and then it doesn't matter whether it is politically steered or not.

It is said that Sweden's reputation and influence are risked by the withdrawal of the contribution. Allow me to doubt that. There are approximately one million things in the world that in different ways affect Sweden's reputation negatively or positively, including depending on how the government acts in important domestic and foreign affairs. That probably plays a much larger role for Sweden's reputation than a single contribution.

Research cooperation is generally beneficial. It should be encouraged and developed, of course. It does not depend on a single contribution.

I dared to go onto the Swedish Research Council's website and look through the development research. I must say that there is absolutely some sensible research. For example, they research mining in Ghana. But the question is how we can influence the mining in Ghana at all. It is not so much knowledge that is lacking here, but rather the political will to improve the conditions. There is an over-reliance on knowledge in our country. People believe that it solves all problems, but that is perhaps not exactly where the knot lies.

Let me give another example of a research project within development research: "Climate change on cocoa farmers affects women worse than men." In the text, it is written: "We strive to contribute to the economic rights and empowerment of women and girls by quantifying current gender inequality. Our hope is that the results can improve the livelihoods of cocoa-dependent households in West Africa and around the world."

No, sorry, we will not be able to improve the supply for cake-dependent households by quantifying the inequality between the genders. I think the Minister should withdraw the grant. This is definitely the limit for Swedish social engineering.

In the Swedish Research Council's research overview, it also states: "Research support for development research is financed by funds from Sweden's international aid, whose goal is to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression." In that case, I believe it is better for the aid to go to tangible projects with visible results. Above all, both the Swedish Research Council and the country's universities are free to finance good projects under the grant, and there are good projects as well. It is simply a matter of allocating money to them through the normal decision-making process.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to my fellow debaters! Just as I have mentioned both in the interpellation response and in the discussion that took place this summer, the decision is based on a significantly worsened global situation. We have a war in Europe, which we did not have before February last year. A clear prioritization from the government's side is to provide support to Ukraine that is powerful but also long-term.

It is clear that it will have consequences. It would have been very strange if the aid policy were not to be affected by the fact that we now, unlike before, just have a war in Europe.

Then there are other parts of this that are important to remember. A stated priority for the government is, for example, to increase humanitarian support, which we have also done. There are enormous needs, not least on the Horn of Africa. We also want to expand climate aid. This year we also have a special initiative for human rights defenders around the world.

Aid is a limited resource. It is generous, but it is not inexhaustible. This means that we must always prioritize. We must always ask ourselves: Where does aid do the most good? I feel comfortable with the conclusion that aid does more good abroad, in the recipient countries, than at home in Sweden. It makes a difference for a hungry child on the Horn of Africa, for a school-interested teenager in Afghanistan, for a mother living under difficult conditions in Ukraine, or for someone with big dreams and small opportunities.

To that I want to say: It is clear that we as a government are very positive towards research, and we value contributions from the research community. I can state that 98 percent of the Swedish Research Council's grants are intact. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is worth repeating: 98 percent. These funds are still available for researchers to apply for.

I also want to point out that development research will be conducted within the framework of other parts - Sida, the Folke Bernadotte Academy, and the Nordic Africa Institute. Sida's part of the government's strategy for development cooperation within research for poverty reduction and sustainable development amounts to 440 million kronor this year. It is still a very large amount of money.

I also want to point out that there are other parts to this. I have mentioned the Swedish Research Council. The total Swedish public research funding amounts to almost 47 billion kronor this year. That is also a very large amount of money. One can look at the EU's research program Horizon. It amounts to 95 billion euro. That is also something that can be pointed out in this context.

But then it is as I have pointed out, that one always has to make priorities. They are not always completely simple. I can understand that there are researchers who are disappointed and who had hoped that more funds would be allocated to them, even though it is a reality for many researchers that they do not always get their applications approved. It is probably more the rule than the exception in that part. But there will still be funds to apply for, for example from the Swedish Research Council, where exactly 98 percent of the resources are intact.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Development research may sound foreign and abstract, but what it is about is international cooperation on research in development issues and support for researchers in developing countries in these issues - this in order to determine how we should promote development throughout the world.

It is research that, among other things, the late Hans Rosling dedicated his life to. It is research grants that have made it possible for, for example, a young former state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, to investigate on-site outbreaks of various epidemics.

These are just two of many, many examples of how a small investment in research can be of enormous benefit in the long run for Sweden and for the world. It is research that leads to concrete results. It could be about how, for example, with the help of Swedish grants, research led to the vaccine Dukoral in Bangladesh – against cholera and traveler's diarrhea. That is something that tens of thousands of Swedish tourists and travelers enjoy. It is, therefore, very concrete. It is very important, and it is not something vague that one can simply strike out.

The Minister claims that there are plenty of funds remaining regarding research in general and that it is indeed only 2 percent that disappears. Yes, that is true. And one has previously boasted about not cutting existing projects and not taking back already granted grants. The bar is quite low, I must say, for what one should be grateful for here in Sweden as a researcher.

The fact is that this is more than a tapering off. It is more than a small adjustment to be able to afford to provide support to Ukraine. This is very ill-considered. It is serious, and it hits hard. It does not only affect Swedish interests and research projects in many countries. It also damages the image of Sweden as a research nation. And it becomes yet another proof that Sweden, under the SD-led government, is withdrawing from the world and lowering its ambitions - in climate work, in development research, in tackling global challenges, in being a pioneering country with 1 percent of GNI in aid.

My request to the government is to rethink and restore the research grant in upcoming budgets. Will the minister act for that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will not be rhetorical but will try to be a bit more constructive in my final speech.

The goal of these funds is not to give Swedish researchers jobs, which one almost gets the impression of here. The goal is actually that one should improve conditions in poor countries and improve development in the third world.

The research that would truly be needed and that I would applaud is about how aid money ends up in the right place and does not go to corrupt power holders. I myself read a report about development research a long time ago. The overall greatest obstacle to prosperity and economic development is corruption and corrupt authorities. Next comes a lack of democracy.

Our primary goal should be to ensure that the aid does not fall into the wrong hands. All information that can help in that regard would be immensely valuable, I would say. That the aid ends up in the right hands and not the wrong ones, I mean, is a thousand times more valuable than this entire grant.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the interpellator, for the new questions and input! I can start by saying something regarding the issue concerning Minor Field Studies and Junior Professional Officers. It falls under a different budget line than that which applies to the Swedish Research Council. It falls under AP 28. It is therefore a different part, which is not affected by this discussion. Right must be right.

When it comes to the question of continued support, I think I have explained that we have made a prioritization. One always has to weigh different things against each other. It is clear that since no budget is unlimited, more money for development research means less money elsewhere. That is how it works. It will then mean less money to help people in Ukraine or to help against famine on the Horn of Africa or for the green transition. That is actually how it looks if we are to be honest, and I think we should be in this discussion.

I might have expected something from Olle Thorell and the Social Democrats. If one is now extremely critical of this, I would have expected there to have been some traces of that in the Social Democrats' own motion on this area. I find no formulations there about development research, any new appropriations, or anything of the sort. It is quite empty in that part, actually very empty. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how much we are actually in disagreement on this issue. Is it possibly mostly rhetoric and not so many concrete things?

It is clear that I am in a situation, Mr. Speaker, where I must prioritize and take responsibility for the whole. I believe that is what one should do even in opposition. I can see that these are not simple questions. One must weigh things against each other, and that is what we do in the budget. I still feel very secure in the view that aid funds do more good abroad than in Sweden.

It is naturally about what one considers important. Is it about the image of Sweden, as has been mentioned here, or is it about providing powerful support to specifically poverty reduction and the long-term support to Ukraine? I know what I think is most important.

They are not simple questions - that is what I want to say. But we have made this prioritization. And I want to point out once again what I have said several times: 98 percent of the Swedish Research Council's grants are intact.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I mean that in our committee motion we have a different prioritization than what the Minister claims. We are allocating 1 billion kronor more to aid than the government does. We stand by our position that we want to restore aid to the one percent level as soon as possible, as soon as we regain power, and then we will prioritize differently. This is not just about moving money to Ukraine from the same bag of money that could have gone to development research, but it is actually the case that the sum of money that the government allocates for aid - 56 billion kronor - is 10.7 billion kronor less than it would have been if we had maintained the one percent goal. It is therefore a reduction in ambition and not just a reprioritization.

I want to conclude by saying that this is yet another sign that Sweden is withdrawing from the world. The government says that we certainly shall no longer be a humanitarian superpower. We shall not have any feminist foreign and aid policy. We take off the leadership jersey and give less aid. We take a step back in being pioneers in the work of climate transition. We move from being a global active actor to a passive regional actor with lower ambitions.

I truly regret this. We think it is the wrong path to take. Sweden can do much better.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that almost 11 billion additional funds are required this year to reach the one percent target. The Social Democrats could have allocated this in their motion if they had wanted to. It would have worked perfectly well.

But that is not what one does. Instead, one allocates 1 billion. So, 11 billion is required, but one allocates 1 billion. Olle Thorell and other Social Democrats can stand and say as many times as they want how important the one percent goal is, and one can certainly think that. The question I ask myself, however, is how important one actually thinks it is if one only allocates 1 billion when 11 billion is required. One gets the impression, Mr. Speaker, that it is mostly rhetorical smoke.

But the figures in the budget do not lie, because there you are forced to prioritize. Then you can no longer pretend that everything is important and that you have as much money as you want, but then it becomes more serious.

These are difficult questions. We have made a prioritization. We have prioritized exactly the long-term and powerful support to Ukraine, we have prioritized increasing the humanitarian support, we are increasing the support for democracy and human rights defense, and we will increase the support linked to green transition – things that make a real difference outside of Sweden's borders.

It is clear that if one has as much funding as one wants, one can do very much. But that is not actually how the world looks, neither for the government nor for the Social Democrats in their shadow budget.

Let us, as said, remember that 98 percent of the Swedish Research Council's funds are intact. Researchers in this field will be able to turn to it with their applications just as before.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)