By Leandro Rodríguez*
The struggle for the social sciences was also a struggle for power in society. Theodore M. Porter
In present-day Argentina, everything seems to be up for debate. The obvious (or what was considered obvious until recently) is being debated. This is not a new phenomenon in national history. Recurrent crises and economic fluctuations often stimulate the spirit of refoundation in each new political adventure.
In this scenario, one of the many topics brought to the forefront is the productivity of public investment in research and scientific development (R&D), particularly in the so-called ‘social sciences and humanities’ (SS&H) (i.e., whether investing in these areas is justified by their utility). Well, faced with such a question, as part of the complex of social sciences and humanities, I feel obligated to present, albeit briefly, some basic data and arguments that may be relevant for those wishing to reflect and delve deeper into the matter.
Let’s start, for contextual purposes, with some comparative information from two very different countries that can serve as references: Canada and South Korea (see sources at the end of the note). The first case, Canada, as is known, is a rich nation, well-endowed with natural resources, among the top 20 in the global Human Development Index, with per capita income 2.2 times higher than Argentina’s (in comparable currency – purchasing power parity, average 2018-2021). Well, this North American country, according to the latest available data, invests $93 per capita/year in Research and Development (R&D) in social sciences and humanities (always in purchasing power parity, average data 2018-2021). This implies an investment almost 3.6 times higher than Argentina’s in the same period. That is, even in proportion to its income level, Canada invests much more in social sciences and humanities (R&D) than Argentina.
Something similar happens with the second case, South Korea. This is an industrial country, specialized in technology-intensive products (integrated circuits, machinery, automobiles, among others). South Korea’s per capita income is 1.8 times that of Argentina. This Asian country invests about $75 per capita/year in R&D in social sciences and humanities. This is 2.9 times more than what Argentina invests in these branches of science. Again, adjusted for income level, South Korea invests much more than Argentina in SS&H.
These two selected examples – there are others even more compelling – allow us to reframe the question about the productivity of SS&H. Indeed, we can ask: Why do these rich countries invest in social sciences and humanities? Neither Canada nor South Korea are states that wish to waste resources. Both, with their own characteristics, consider themselves ‘successful’ in the concert of nations. However, in proportion to their income, they invest much more than Argentina does in SS&H. Why?
The answer to this question is much simpler than it seems. Rich countries invest in social sciences and humanities because they are necessary and useful to the development process in a broad sense. They fulfill an irreplaceable function. What is that function?
To understand this, one must know the origin of the disciplines and sub-disciplines that make up the SS&H as such. In institutional terms (as specific fields of knowledge, study programs, and part of universities and institutes), the core of the SS&H was a creation of Western capitalism and the interstate system starting in the 19th century. The regime of Capital transformed ancient rural, agrarian, dispersed, relatively static, and scarcely diversified communities into dynamic, populous, urban, diverse, and hyper-specialized societies. It was then necessary to have knowledge to understand, order, and manage these emerging social phenomena: the structuring of the complex of disciplines and sub-disciplines that make up the fabric of the SS&H is linked, in part, to this role.
Modern societies required answers that demanded new knowledge: How to educate – the masses -, communicate, mediate inevitable power – or class – conflicts, manage organizations and groups, administer the economy and businesses, strengthen social cohesion, consolidate historical identity, understand cultural objects specific to each people, and a long etcetera, …?
In other words, the disciplines/sub-disciplines that make up the social sciences and humanities emerged associated with specific needs and provided (and provide) valuable and useful knowledge to facilitate and improve life in society. Naturally, this does not mean that the SS&H can solve or channel all problems. Such a thing would be absurd. The SS&H study a ‘rebellious’ object, which resists being corseted and crystallized: it is the behavior of free, conscious, and creative beings, who have the power of change. Therefore, knowledge and intervention strategies are always provisional. Society is a totality in motion, which learns, transforms, and imagines new horizons. Hence also the importance of constant updating in conceptual, epistemological, and methodological terms of the SS&H.
But beyond that, perhaps in greater depth, the SS&H contribute to shaping collective imaginaries (horizons of thought), pushing the limits of the possible, and fostering criticism of what has been instituted (hence they are often uncomfortable for power, at least in some expressions).
Considering then the utility and substantive role of the social sciences and humanities (SS&H), and given that they generally constitute a public good (a large part of the knowledge they generate cannot be fragmented or sold for exclusive consumption – non-rival and non-excludable), it falls to the State the responsibility to ensure the continuity and strengthening of these disciplines and sub-disciplines. This without prejudice to the existence of multiple institutional arrangements on how such responsibility can be concretized in each country.
Finally, it is obvious that funding and betting on the development of SS&H must maintain a balance, and rationality and efficiency are needed in its implementation. This is true for all major societal efforts. It is also important to examine the results and impacts produced by these activities and their effective role in each case. Nevertheless, saving these aspects, it seems clear that in Argentina, investment in SS&H is low and needs to be substantially expanded. Especially considering that we have high-level social scientists who are relatively inexpensive!
Data sources: own elaboration based on: OECD – Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and field of R&D; World Bank and Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI) and UNESCO (2023). The data refer to the 2018-2021 average (according to the latest available information).
* Rodríguez is a teacher and researcher, director of the Doctorate in Social Sciences at UNER.
— new from Página Política