4. Transnational Science Cooperation for Sustainable Development

Since colonial times, the definition of development has been predominantly shaped in the Global North, at the expense of Southern perspectives. In consequence, the uneven distribution of power and accepted knowledge has also shaped development cooperation in practice (della Faille 2011; Escobar 1992; Esteva 2010; Gardner and Lewis 2000; Gore 2000; Nederveen Pieterse 2011; Ziai 2010, 2015). Development thinking was firmly based on the belief of the superiority of Western knowledge and the model of Western/Northern modernity, to be followed as a pathway to development, which was understood to be the modernisation of traditional societies. Modernity and development meant triggering economic growth and introducing modern institutions, values, and norms. In this development paradigm, non-Western knowledge was neglected and devaluated (Cowen and Shenton 2003; Crewe and Harrison 1998). Modernisation theory and its assumptions of knowledge for development have been criticised for many years, among other reasons for being too simplistic (Chataway et al. 2006), too linear (Evers 2000), for implying an expert lay hierarchy (Illi 2001; Sillitoe 2000), or for maintaining North-South hierarchies and technological dependence (Shamsavari 2007).

In the Global South, some countries, such as Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, among others, have developed strong science systems—backed by public and private investments in research—and turned into global players in science production (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2015). At the same time, development policy and practice are opening up to different conceptualisations, including Southern knowledge and perspectives. For example, the concept of “Buen Vivir” as a Southern vision of development is widely known in the development community (Acosta Espinosa 2008). Moreover, the development paradigm, as such, is shifting towards more equitable knowledge/power relations, as evident in the increased focus on ownership, partnership, and the local suitability of interventions in North-South cooperation, a shift towards a global perspective on development, and the rise of South-South cooperation as an additional type of development cooperation (Janus et al. 2015).

While knowledge, power, and development are closely interrelated in determining the very idea of the latter, knowledge has also turned into a subject of development policy and practice. Institutions such as the World Bank (1999) firmly introduced “knowledge for development” on the agenda of development policy and practice (Evers et al. 2006), uncritically picturing knowledge as a panacea for development—that is, knowledge produced elsewhere to be used in the context of the Global South. Knowledge is viewed as a precondition and driver of (sustainable) development. Making knowledge useable for development consequently has turned into a normative goal pursued by many governments and institutions, often in view of the economic usability of knowledge (Hornidge 2012, 2014a).

Different scholars have contested the simplistic idea that knowledge is a silver bullet for development and have painted a more differentiated picture instead. While generally affirming the important role of knowledge in sustainable development, the scientific community acknowledges that, next to the inherent relation between knowledge and power, knowledge is surrounded by different types of social, legal, political, and technical boundaries (see among others, Evers 2000; Evers et al. 2006; Hornidge 2013). In addition, certain aspects of the concept of “knowledge for development” are debated—such as its best use (Narayanaswamy 2013); the role of local or indigenous knowledge; and the problems of conceptualising it as the opposite of scientific or expert knowledge (Agrawal 1995; Mosse 2001; Sillitoe 2000).

Even in a contested area such as knowledge and (or for) development, some things are not disputed, however. This includes the importance of primary and secondary education and the knowledge transmitted by it, including basic factual and practical types of knowledge as well as knowledge-related skills, such as literacy (Klochikhin 2012). The value attributed to basic education and knowledge is reflected in national development policies as well as their international framing: Transmitting knowledge through education was one of the Millennium Development Goals and included in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well (United Nations [UN] 2015; UN Development Programme [UNDP] 2013).

Basic education is even used as an indicator for development: Both the Human Development Index as well as the Multidimensional Poverty Index include knowledge—measured through average and expected years of schooling—as indicators (UNDP 2018). Primary, secondary, and tertiary education as well as capacity development continue to be a focus of development policies worldwide. In Germany, for example, basic education is well-established as a subfield of national education policy as well as international development policy (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBF] 2016; German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development [BMZ] 2015).

Next to the formal education system, knowledge cooperation may also take place in the form of capacity development or knowledge transfer in different sectors, for example, through vocational training in specific fields of expertise. While the role of education and capacity development is mainly to transmit knowledge from one individual or institutional actor—often from a donor country—to another, more recently emphasis has also been put on knowledge exchange, with knowledge being shared among partners in both directions. Here, the focus ideally is on mutual learning (Arocena and Sutz 2010; Bradley 2007; Upreti 2011). The 2030 Agenda puts knowledge sharing at the heart of SDG 17. Online platforms such as the United Nation’s (UN) SDG Knowledge Platform (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2019) and the GPEDC Knowledge Platform (Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation [GPEDC] 2019) similarly target virtual knowledge sharing for sustainable development. According to Janus et al. (2015), next to perceiving development as a global phenomenon, it is a further feature of “beyond aid” to emphasise the role of knowledge exchange among partners from different societal sectors and different world regions. However, knowledge sharing is still to be differentiated from the joint production of new knowledge on specific phenomena, as enabled in research cooperation.

In most societies, “autonomous” and curiosity-driven types of science coexist with “relevant” and problem-focussed types of science (Kaldewey 2013). At the same time, the role of science in and for society in general—or sustainable development in particular—is being debated (Glerup and Horst 2014; also see Stock and Schneidewind 2014).

I would like to propose two potentially conducive relations between science and sustainable development: Science on sustainable development and science for sustainable development. These are closely related to the concepts of transformation science and transformative science (German Advisory Council on Global Change [WBGU] 2011, 2016), while extending their scope. Science on sustainable development encompasses all types of research in the field that create new insights on sustainable development. It fills knowledge gaps and scientifically analyses problems in all areas of sustainable development, such as the effects of climate change, natural resource depletion, social inequalities, interdependencies between dimensions of sustainable development, etc. Given the complexity of sustainable development, as such, many fields of basic and applied research potentially produce relevant knowledge on sustainable development. In addition, research on sustainable development also deals with potential social and technological transformation processes, examines path dependencies and barriers preventing transformations, builds scenarios for different pathways towards sustainability, etc. Progress monitoring and measuring or indicator development for sustainability-related global agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the 2030 Agenda, are further fields of research on sustainable development.

In contrast, science for sustainable development is solutions-oriented research that is potentially aimed at transformative change. Researchers engaged in this type of applied research develop different types of solutions or innovations on different scales to target different dimensions of sustainable development. While technical innovations are often prominent, solutions could equally address social practices or governance, including science-based policy advice for sustainable development. If science is viewed in terms of its relevance and applicability for sustainable development, a crucial element is to transform scientific knowledge into impact outside of science (Douthwaite et al. 2007; Sarewitz et al. 2004). The process of creating impact—thus describing the relation between science and societal aspects—can be illuminated through the concept of “innovation”.

Until today, innovation is predominantly interpreted as an economy-related concept. For analysing science for sustainable development, more encompassing conceptualisations are more suitable, however. Innovation then refers to any novelty implemented in a specific context or to the process of its implementation. In this definition, innovation is not necessarily aimed at economic benefits (Röling 2009). Objects of innovation can be material phenomena, such as a technology, or non-material innovations, such as a new technique, organisational or process-related changes, or social processes (Ul Hassan et al. 2011). Potentially, science-based innovations thus may have various entry points to “the real world”. Scientific results may be adopted in the form of an innovative technology, product, or process that leads, for example, to better medical treatments, enhanced food security, or improved adaptation to climate change (Arocena and Sutz 2012; Conway et al. 2010; Douthwaite 2002; Hornidge 2013; Röling 2009; Smith 2009; STEPS Centre 2010). Or they may inspire social innovation, for example, changing public perceptions and individual behaviour, or influencing social or economic policies and governance structures (Sumner et al. 2009).

Transdisciplinary knowledge creation is widely believed to be a mode of research that corresponds well to the objective of applied science for sustainable development. It has been put into practice in transnational research cooperation and, subsequently, the concept has been taken up in policy advice and by policy-makers as an adequate form of effective, science-based problem-solving (Jahn et al. 2012). As a mode of science, transdisciplinarity is recommended to—and applied within—the development research community as well as in sustainability research to create impact beyond publications or patents (KFPE 1998; Stöckli et al. 2012). Transdisciplinary approaches are characterised by problem-orientation, policy-orientation, and/or impact-orientation. In all stages of the research process, partners from academia, civil society, and policy are involved; this is perceived to ensure relevant and suitable results and solutions (Lang et al. 2012; Lyall 2008; Mollinga 2008; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2008). The concept of transdisciplinarity entails the idea of respecting and appreciating diverse knowledge on equal footing. In view of North-South cooperation, symmetric partnerships between researchers from developed countries and developing countries that are based on mutual interest and ownership—including joint agenda-setting, decision-making, implementation, and management—are strived for, but also critically reflected on (see, among others, Bradley 2007; KFPE 1998; Stöckli et al. 2012; Wiesmann et al. 2011; Zingerli 2010). Transnational transdisciplinary cooperation may face difficulties in practice, for example, when certain partners lack adequate funding, or when different partners have different problem definitions. In addition to different socio-economic, institutional, and epistemic backgrounds, diverging research interests and a lack of methodologies on international cooperation can lead to reproducing (neo)colonial patterns or patronage relationships as well as enhancing power imbalances (Bradley 2007; Fuest 2005, 2007; Grosfoguel 2013; Maselli et al. 2006; Zingerli 2010). It is therefore necessary to align practices on the ground with the normative discourse on transdisciplinary partnerships. Although practice and theory thus may deviate, as in other types of cooperation, transnational transdisciplinary cooperation is still believed to be a valuable principle for coming up with implementable solutions as well as an even distribution of benefits stemming from the research process, thereby providing a fruitful mutual experience for all parties involved in the partnership (STEPS Centre 2010; Stöckli et al. 2012).

Next to the potential benefits, more reflexive accounts of the impacts of applied science on society also acknowledge the potential of negative or unintended consequences or trade-offs.⁶ For example, science-based innovations leading to economic growth might aggravate inequality at the same time; medical research might not produce the expected impacts on reducing infection rates among certain social groups; or the introduction of a new drought-resistant crop variety might lead to abandoning a more nutritious one (Douthwaite et al. 2001; Sarewitz et al. 2004; Smith 2009).

The scope and the scale addressed through both the science on and for sustainable development may differ. In view of scope, research may focus on isolated dimensions of sustainable development, such as ecological problems, or it may investigate phenomena from a more encompassing perspective and consider social and economic aspects alongside ecological ones, thus displaying a larger conceptual scope. It may also focus on interconnections or trade-offs between dimensions of sustainable development. In view of scale, research perspectives may address an overarching systemic level, such as a country’s innovation system, or it may address the transformation of society as a whole towards sustainability (Geels 2004; Geels and Schot 2007; WBGU 2011). On a smaller scale, research may also target problem analysis and find solutions to concrete sustainability issues at a context-dependent, problem-specific level (Rhodes and Sulston 2009; Sumner et al. 2009). The proposed categories, as often is the case, are not clear-cut but may overlap and blur. Nevertheless, they serve to distinguish between some characteristic features of research on and for sustainable development.

Transnational research cooperation between partners in the Global North and the Global South touches the political fields of both development policy and science policy. The German case provides an empirical illustration of the importance of the specific political framework of research cooperation between the Global North and South, which determines its potential effects. Although countries differ in view of their political institutions—and the findings therefore cannot be generalised—the separation of policy fields into science policy, on the one hand, and development policy, on the other, can be commonly observed. Along the German example, I argue that the coherence of science policy and development policy objectives on the country level might benefit from a closer focus of global governance mechanisms on the role of research cooperation between the Global South and North—and that it is therefore a worthwhile scientific endeavour to analyse the political context in different national political set-ups.

In the German context, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is the largest provider of public funds for research cooperation between German researchers and partners in the Global South. Decisively setting the course of cooperation, the policies for research cooperation with developing countries or emerging economies are a field of science policy and not the policies of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The same division of responsibilities holds true in the European Union (EU), which funds research cooperation between EU member states and developing countries and emerging economies within its Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, which is currently Horizon 2020 (BMBF 2008; European Commission 2015). In other European countries, such as Switzerland and France, the policies and funding for research cooperation are the shared responsibilities of both the ministries of science as well as the ministries of development cooperation (Institut de recherche pour le développement 2012; KFPE 2013).

In view of funding research cooperation with the Global South, the BMBF provides the largest amount of public funding in Germany. BMBF expenditures for cooperation with BRICS countries alone amounted to approximately €47 million in 2012 (BMBF 2014b). In view of BMBF funding for cooperation with other countries of the Global South, the only numbers available were those reported as official development assistance (ODA) expenditures, which increased from €112.7 million in 2012 (BMZ 2013) to €149.9 million in 2015 (Bohnet et al. 2018). Quite likely, these figures include activities of cooperation in education as well as research. Other official sources state that between 2011 and 2015, the BMBF allocated €206 million to cooperation with African partner countries (18. German Federal Parliament 2017). The BMBF’s Subdepartment for Sustainability, Climate, Energy has the longest tradition of cooperating with countries of the Global South—both on a political level as well as in funding cooperative research. As with other BMBF research programmes, its framework programme Research for Sustainability Development (FONA) is primarily dedicated to supporting German researchers. Nevertheless, in the scope of the programme, many initiatives for cooperation between Germany and the Global South have been funded. The importance given to the international dimension of sustainability and environmental issues is shown in the high amount of expenditures for inter- and transnational cooperation, which amounted to 20 per cent of the total funds of FONA, €100 million per year, from 2010 to 2014 (Fischer and Mennicken 2013). Larger funding initiatives for research cooperation with partners in the Global South include funding initiatives on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) (BMBF 2004a) and sustainable Megacities (BMBF 2004b), as well as the establishment of two Regional Climate Science Service Centres in Western and Southern Africa in 2010, now in their second funding phases (BMBF 2019).

The BMZ funds activities within higher education and research, including individual scholarships and university partnerships for science management, with approximately €50 million per year (18. German Federal Parliament 2017). The BMZ’s policies for research cooperation, as part of the development policy portfolio, are often coupled with (higher) education (BMZ 2015). BMZ programmes instead target infrastructural measures and capacity development in the higher education sector. For example, the BMZ supports cooperation with higher education institutions in developing countries, aligning curricula to job market demands, sharpening research profiles, and fostering internationalisation. In addition, the BMZ funds some research through intermediary organisations, such as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). For example, funded through the BMZ, the DAAD and GIZ cooperated with the Commission of the African Union to set up the Pan African University’s Institute of Water and Energy Sciences. Aiming at fostering higher education, science, and technological development across Africa, the Pan African University established new institutes at existing research centres in addition to educating postgraduates as well as PhD candidates and conducting applied research (German Academic Exchange Service 2016; Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit 2016). Distinguishing more specifically between funding for higher education and funding for research, as such, shows that although higher education is funded comprehensively within the BMZ’s portfolio, compared to other sources of research cooperation funding—and also compared to the BMZ’s overall expenditures—its funds for research-related activities are small (BMBF 2014b).

Next to the source of funding for research cooperation between partners of the Global North and the Global South, the policy objectives of different ministries also vary. In view of the policies for research cooperation, the different institutional and discursive frameworks of the BMBF and the BMZ influence the objectives, mode, and target groups of cooperation. This is essential, also in view of policy coherence for development.

The BMBF, as such, is not primarily aimed at international policy-making, but rather focusses on the German national context in its policies and funding measures. Nevertheless, international cooperation is part of its policy spectrum. Across its departments, the BMBF funds international research cooperation within the scope of different strategies, within different funding initiatives, with different partner countries, on different topics, and with different objectives (BMBF 2014c). The motivation for funding research cooperation with developing and emerging countries is not predominantly a concern for global sustainable development. It is of equal importance to foster German interests, such as positioning Germany as a player on future markets or contributing to technology exports (Schwachula 2019).⁷

To ensure policy coherence, ministries are legally obliged to cooperate with the Joint Rules of Procedure of the Federal Ministries (Cabinet of Germany 2011). At the same time, the German constitution grants a high degree of autonomy to each ministry, which counteracts coherence. In this sense, the fate of the Internationalisation Strategy (BMBF 2008, 2016), which was issued by the BMBF but is inter-ministerial in scope, and the International Cooperation Action Plan (BMBF 2014a) is illustrative. Although on paper the documents set an overarching framework for funding international cooperation in education and research across the entire German government, the documents are not binding.

In addition, policy coherence is endangered by rivalries between ministries. Instead of viewing ministries as non-political entities of administration, the relations between the BMBF and the BMZ illustrate that policy-makers also defend their political turf, especially when policy fields overlap. Policies, programmes, and funding measures are the outcomes of previous processes of policy-making, and therefore they are the products of knowledge politics, of strategic or coincidental integration, or the inclusion of different actors in the policy process. They are subject to bureaucratic rules and regulations and coined by pre-existing norms, values, and beliefs, which finally crystallise in policies.

I argue that the causes of incoherent policies lie within the different logics and perspectives on cooperation with the Global South. Neither the processes of policy-making nor policy outcomes are reconciled, as the BMBF aims to maintain its own political autonomy, whereas the BMZ is not in a position to prescribe policy coherence for development (Schwachula 2019). Despite distancing itself from the policy rationales of the BMZ, however, the BMBF is able to report some of its activities as ODA, contributing 0.9 per cent of the German ODA quota, which ranked it fourth among the German federal ministries in 2015 (Bohnet et al. 2018).

More traditional types of development cooperation are defined, negotiated, and aligned on the global level in view of their modes of cooperation, thematic responsibilities, and development targets, such as the SDGs. Hence, global governance structures are in place for development cooperation. In contrast to other types of cooperation, however, science cooperation between the Global North and South has received little attention in global governance and is barely regulated. Thus, research cooperation is nationally and internationally mostly “ungoverned”, which is surprising in view of its high potential as a type of cooperation conducive to sustainable development and the SDGs, in particular. The existing institutions and norms of (sustainable) development on the global scale curiously still have not put North-South research cooperation into the spotlight.

International development agreements such as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, its follow-up Accra Agenda for Action (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2008), the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation (OECD 2011), and the following GPEDC set an overarching framework for national policies, such as the development policy of the BMZ, as well as for non-state action.

In contrast to development policy, the BMBF’s science policy, which is directed at transnational cooperation, is not bound to fulfilling international agreements relating to sustainable development, such as the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs. Thus, international development targets and agreements are of subordinate importance for the political framing of science cooperation between the Global North and the Global South. BMBF funding for research on sustainable development, in cooperation with partners from the Global South, may be reported as part of German ODA—but it does not have to be. The BMBF could use at least part of its resources to fund entirely different research activities. International political agreements in the context of the G20 rarely address the role of science cooperation for sustainable development (Cabinet of Germany 2018).

Separate international and global policies or governance mechanisms for transnational research partnerships between the Global North and the Global South, as an equivalent to development cooperation, do not exist. In view of principles of cooperation and their conduciveness to sustainable development, transnational research cooperation in practice often takes place outside of global agreements. The 2030 Agenda, as such, does not specifically conceptualise knowledge or science cooperation as a contribution to development cooperation. In its portrayal of knowledge for development, the document remains ambiguous and vague. Although it portrays the SDGs as global, encompassing concerns, science is mainly portrayed in view of its economic viability, for example through technology development. Although SDG target 17.6 specifically calls for science cooperation—including North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation—it only relates to technology development. Next to technology development, the 2030 Agenda specifically refers to the accompanying task of research, such as developing indicators and monitoring implementation. In the agenda, the institutionalisation of an online platform for information on existing science and technology initiatives is called for (however, such a platform was only available in a test version at the time of research) (UN 2018a). Institutions surrounding the 2030 Agenda, such as the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), and the voluntary national reviews rely on scientific data collection for the SDGs. Results of a yearly UN-convened Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals are fed into the HLPF (UN 2018b). The UN additionally mandates an international group of scientists with elaborating a science-based Global Sustainable Development Report for strengthening science-policy interfaces (UN 2018c).

Beyond technology development and accompanying research on sustainable development, however, the 2030 Agenda, as such, does not refer to transnational research cooperation as a beneficial type of partnership for encompassing sustainable development. Target 17.16, on multi-stakeholder partnerships, makes no reference to science, or to different types of knowledge at all (UN 2015). Cummings et al. therefore conclude “that there is a mismatch between the transformative vision and strategy within the SDGs and the non-transformative nature of the means of implementation and the goals and targets” and call for a more inclusive, pluralist perspective on knowledge for development (Cummings et al. 2018, p. 738).

The development-related agreements, institutions, and norms established by the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) do not cover the role of science, as such—more specifically, they also do not adequately cover the role of research cooperation between partners of the Global North and South. The Paris Declaration (2005) does not allude to science or research at all. The Accra Agenda for Action mentions research institutes only in the context of taking “an active role in dialogue on development policy and on the role of aid in contributing to countries’ development objectives” (OECD 2008, p. 16). The Busan Partnership Agreement, while highlighting the role of new actors in cooperation and alluding to the importance of knowledge, does not consider the role of science beyond its role of monitoring and assessing the performance of development institutions (OECD 2011). Following up on the Busan Partnership Agreement, the GPEDC, as a shared initiative between the UN and the OECD, aims at effective partnerships for reaching the 2030 Agenda. It is based on four principles: joint ownership, focus on results, inclusive development partnerships, transparency and accountability (OECD and UNDP 2019). Although it promotes a “whole of society approach to development”, the role of cooperation with research is neglected, whereas multi-stakeholder partnerships with civil society organisations and the private sector are specifically encouraged.

The GPEDC attributes a substantial role to monitoring, data, and evidence, and thus to research accompanying the implementation of the GPEDC’s objectives (OECD and UNDP 2019). The GPEDC also acknowledges the important role of knowledge for development. As an objective, the work programme of 2017/2018 stated that knowledge sharing should be enabled by “[b]ringing together the learning, knowledge and technology available across constituencies to help scale development solutions at a faster pace” (GPEDC 2017, p. 5). Aiming at developing into a knowledge-sharing hub for development actors on different levels, the GPEDC also established an online knowledge platform as a “one-stop shop to evidence-based solutions, peer learning and networking to advance the effectiveness of all development efforts, for achievement of national priorities and the SDGs” (GPEDC 2019). However, researchers are not among the listed social actors for cooperating in development, nor is science included as a topic of discussion in view of its potential benefits.

The neglect of research cooperation in development norms and partnerships is mirrored in the low levels of research funding officially reported as ODA, although the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) reporting directives for ODA actually would allow research activities to be reported as ODA:

Research includes financing by the official sector, whether in the donor country or elsewhere, of research into the problems of developing countries. This may be either (i) undertaken by an agency or institution whose main purpose is to promote the economic growth or welfare of developing countries, or (ii) commissioned or approved, and financed or part-financed, by an official body from a general purpose institution with the specific aim of promoting the economic growth or welfare of developing countries. (OECD-DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics 2018, p. 30)

Interestingly, thus, the OECD reporting guidelines deviate from the GPEDC’s discourse by specifically mentioning research as a means of ODA. For both GPEDC documents as well as 2030 Agenda documents, it holds true that—beyond a very general reference to research for development, that is, research on the problems of the Global South, or technology-oriented research and innovation⁸—none of the documents or knowledge platforms suggest any rules or guidelines on the role of research, as such, or on principles of cooperation in transnational research. Accordingly, neither topics, nor principles, nor modes, nor partner regions of cooperation are regulated—none are incentivised, none are forbidden. Potentially, any researchers from the Global North may decide to cooperate with partners in the Global South on almost any given topic, in any given mode—and potentially also report it as ODA.

I argue that it is worthwhile to scrutinise the gaps in global governance for research cooperation between partners in the Global South and North, as they may aggravate policy incoherence on the national level. The example of Germany illustrates that, without informal agreements or formal rules on the international or global level, science policy for international cooperation may pursue objectives that are detached from—and potentially even run contrary to—those of development policy. In addition, the lack of detailed criteria for reporting science cooperation may have detrimental effects: In practice, this leads to research partnerships that are reported as ODA while not meeting the partnership principles agreed upon, as I elaborate below.

In appraising the absence of regulations and norms—both formal and informal—for transnational research cooperation, the concept of freedom of research has to be taken into account, a freedom that is granted to research in most democratic national constitutions in the Global North as well as the Global South. Some philosophers of science even perceive the autonomy of science as being the crucial element of ensuring its creativity and productivity (Polanyi 2000). In the science systems of most countries, science policy enables curiosity-driven, autonomous research, while also guiding research towards specific societal aims.

Science is thus promoted as a means of reaching an objective beyond science, within other parts of society (Sarewitz et al. 2004; Sarewitz and Pielke 2007). In consequence, research cooperation is never entirely free of being governed. Research on some topics or locations is restricted or enabled by certain rules: For example, ethical principles for medical research, aimed at protecting the rights and lives of research participants, are internationally agreed upon (World Health Organization 2019). On topics such as nuclear research, transnational research cooperation is restricted due to security issues, for example, between EU countries and Iran (DLR Project Management Agency 2019).

However, governing science does not always imply that it is restricted. Conventions, rules, and norms may also enable or incentivise certain types of science or research cooperation. For example, in an attempt to enable scientific cooperation, the Arctic Council issued an agreement on research cooperation in and on the Arctic (Arctic Council 2017). In this light, global agreements may help guide transnational research cooperation between the Global South and the Global North towards becoming more conducive to sustainable development.

An explicit normative framework for research cooperation on the global level entailing principles of fair and successful cooperation, such as partnership, ownership, and benefit-sharing, might enhance policy coherence in, for example, the German case, where national science policies for transnational cooperation with the Global South are not aligned with policies for sustainable development. The field of science policy, even if it is oriented towards transnational cooperation with the Global South, is untouched by any global norms or regulations, thus it is open to deviations from globally agreed targets. In the German context, the bargaining power of actors within the BMBF, who pursue development-oriented targets of research policy, may be strengthened by integrating science cooperation among Northern and Southern partners more explicitly into the global development agenda. It would provide additional global legitimation for research policies targeting global development, which often compete against nationally oriented policy rationales. A focus on research partnerships on the global agenda might also strengthen the position of the BMZ or comparable development ministries where it concerns the enforcement of policy coherence of other political fields with developmental objectives.

The process of the policy design of older German funding initiatives for international cooperation, such as the IWRM initiative (BMBF 2004a) and the Megacities initiative (BMBF 2004b), illustrates why gaps in global governance mechanisms, in view of transnational research, may have detrimental effects. Both funding measures were aimed at cooperation with different partner countries in the Global South, ranging from Namibia, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Brazil, Iran, and Peru to South Africa, among others. Despite their international focus, the funding programmes were unilaterally designed by the BMBF according to German research interests, and in the case of the IWRM initiative, also according to German business interests.⁹ They were not co-designed or co-financed by partner countries. Hence, this exclusion of Southern partners in setting agendas and designing cooperation policies ran contrary to any principles of ownership and partnership, as specified in the GPEDC. Furthermore, the mode of agenda-setting as well as the funding modalities, which only allowed for minimal funds for Southern researchers, had severe consequences for the transnational research projects implemented. Effects ranged from practical problems, such as finding funding for researchers in the Southern partner country, to the ethical problem of repeating old patterns of cooperation between well-paid foreign experts and local researchers as mere recipients of knowledge—and in some cases the effects led to promoting technologies as a solution at the expense of social or other types of innovation (Schwachula 2019). Despite this mismatch with norms for development cooperation, research cooperation projects such as those in the IWRM and Megacities funding initiatives were reported as ODA. This phenomenon is not restricted to Germany; similar criticism has been voiced in view of the British Global Challenges Research Fund for not supporting equitable partnerships, despite being reported as ODA (Fransman and Newman 2019).

More recent science cooperation funding, such as the BMBF’s German–African Regional Science Service Centres, offers examples of more inclusive agenda-setting and policy design. During the creation of these centres, the BMBF and the governments of Southern and West African countries negotiated on topics and funding before the large-scale projects were initiated in 2010. These projects were reported as ODA and also complied with internationally agreed partnership principles of development cooperation. This, however, was a lucky coincidence of voluntary alignment and cannot be attributed to a steering effect of the global governance framework, as such.