When we wish to find out how much a country invests in science, the key indicator is GERD (Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development) which represents gross domestic expenditure on scientific research and research and development activities (hereinafter referred to as “research and development” or “R&D”).
This figure encompasses total expenditure on research and development activities within a country’s borders over the course of one year, regardless of whether the money comes from the state budget, the business sector, universities, or from abroad. GERD can be broken down according to who performs the research: the government sector (GOVERD – Government expenditure on R&D), the non-financial – i.e., business enterprise sector (BERD – Business enterprise expenditure on R&D), higher education (HERD – Higher education expenditure on R&D), and the private non-profit sector (PNPRD – private non-profit sector expenditure on R&D).
In the Republic of Serbia, total gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) reached 90.58 billion dinars, i.e. 774 million euros, in 2024, representing 0.94% of gross domestic product. If we look at previous years, this percentage varies very little and does not exceed 1%.
On the other hand, the strategic framework of the Republic of Serbia sets targets for GERD that are regularly above 1%. More specifically, the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia for the period from 2021 to 2025 set a target of 1.2% for 2023. The most recent Action Plan (2023–2025) for the implementation of the Smart Specialisation Strategy in the Republic of Serbia for the period from 2020 to 2027 set a target of 1.2% for 2025, while the Smart Specialisation Strategy in the Republic of Serbia itself set a target of 1.3% for 2027. A new Action Plan for the Smart Specialisation Strategy 2026–2027 is currently in the process of development.
The Structure of GERD and Societal Interests
Before forming views on whether GERD simply needs to be increased and whether that in itself would be a developmental step, we must not neglect the very structure of this investment, and consequently the societal interests linked to it.
The distribution of funds by scientific field shows that the natural sciences “receive” approximately 37.3 billion dinars (41% of total expenditure), engineering and technology 29.9 billion (33%), social sciences 8.9 billion (10%), agricultural and veterinary sciences 6.5 billion (7%), humanities and the arts 5.4 billion (6%), and medical and health sciences 2.6 billion dinars (3%).
The aforementioned classification is aligned with the so-called Frascati Manual, the OECD’s methodological guidelines for measuring research and development indicators. According to this classification, scientific fields are determined by the knowledge domain in which they are conducted, not by the area of application or the societal purpose of the research.
Thus, the domain of engineering and technology encompasses all research concerning matters such as the design and construction of machines and technical systems, regardless of whether they will be used in a hospital, in a field, or in war operations, for the purposes of mass surveillance, and similar.
Research related to the improvement of a tractor component as a machine will be counted under mechanical engineering, while research into agroecological interventions using that tractor will belong to the agricultural sciences.
This kind of division is methodologically concise and internationally comparable, but it raises certain political and ethical questions. First and foremost, we have the implicit assumption that research is value-neutral in and of itself. Particularly when we talk about technological innovations, they are never value-neutral but always represent a manifestation of specific social relations and patterns of power. This can be deduced from the very process of innovation creation, so it is not simply a matter of a specific mode of use, nor of intended or unintended consequences. That is why we must ask questions about for whom, and for what reason, specific knowledge is being produced.
Where the Money from the National Budget Goes
The share of budget funds for research and development classified by socio-economic objective offers us one part of the answer to the questions posed, as it takes into account only those funds for research and development allocated from the budget of the Republic of Serbia. According to NABS classification (Nomenclature for the Analysis and Comparison of Scientific Programmes and Budgets), the spent funds for research and development are grouped into 14 categories:
- Exploration and exploitation of the earth;
- Environment;
- Exploration and exploitation of space;
- Transport, telecommunication and other infrastructures;
- Energy;
- Industrial production and technology;
- Health;
- Agriculture;
- Education;
- Culture, recreation, religion and mass media;
- Political and social systems, structures and processes;
- General advancement of knowledge (R&D financed from general university funds);
- General advancement of knowledge: R&D financed from sources other than general university funds);
- Defence.
In the Republic of Serbia in 2024, out of a total of 39 billion dinars of budget funds for research and development, the largest single objective is “Industrial production and technology” with 6.66 billion dinars. This is followed by two categories of general advancement of knowledge, research financed from general university funds and that financed from other sources. These two areas together amount to almost 14 billion dinars, and within these funds, the distribution by scientific field also favours engineering and technology.
Further down the list are “Transport, telecommunications, and other infrastructures” with 4.15 billion, “Agriculture” with 4.08 billion, “Health” with 2.36 billion, “Education” with 1.86 billion, “Political and social systems, structures, and processes” with 1.82 billion, “Culture, recreation, religion, and mass media” with 1.38 billion, and “Environment” with 1.2 billion.
The smallest allocations are directed towards “Defence” with 761.7 million, “Energy” with 432.1 million, “Exploration and exploitation of the Earth” with 287.7 million, and “Exploration and exploitation of space” with 148.7 million dinars. However, this data covers only just over half of the total expenditure on research and development in Serbia, exclusively the part of research and development which is financed from the budget of the Republic.
Where the Money from the Private Sector Goes
If we look at GERD by sector, the situation is that the non-financial (business enterprise) sector participates in gross domestic expenditure on research and development with 41.7 billion dinars (46% of total expenditure). These 41.7 billion dinars linked to research and development in the business sector may also contain that part of research which can be directly or indirectly used for repressive, destructive, or environmentally harmful purposes.
All tihs without the public having any means to separate it out, problematise it, or subject it to any democratic debate. Given that the European Union, through the European Research Area (ERA), explicitly advocates for an increase in GERD through an increase in the share of the business sector, these questions become crucial.
We can take as a concrete example the geological exploration conducted by one of the companies searching for our mineral resources. What part of this research falls under research and development? Where do these explorations belong? According to the scientific field, these explorations, which face strong public opposition, could be classified under “Natural sciences” and partly perhaps under “Engineering and technology.”
Thus, this company’s own investments in geological exploration, which can be measured in hundreds of millions of euros, are statistically invisible in the context of their purpose and their share in GERD.
This would also mean that if a company appears with a similar or bigger volume of investment in geological exploration for the needs of a foreign extractive project, the total gross domestic expenditure on research and development could increase noticeably, without a clear insight into the real reasons and regardless of the questionable social legitimacy of these investments.
It is also worth noting that there is a certain share of public expenditure on research and development that is financed by the private sector through co-financing. This refers to forms of public-private partnerships, i.e., cooperation between the business sector and universities and public research organisations. In the Republic of Serbia, this share is less than 1%.
Furthermore, if we look at the number of organisations engaged in research and development, out of a total of 181 organisations that fall within the fields of engineering and technology, as many as 149 belong to the business sector. Out of 155 organisations in the natural sciences, 124 fall within the business sector. In contrast, in the social sciences, out of 72 organisations, only 17 are in the business sector, and in the humanities, out of 25, only 2. Here we see how private capital is focused primarily on areas that, as a rule, have commercial potential or that offer a technological advantage on the market.
While the business sector dominates in engineering and technology and the natural sciences, the government sector and higher education cover the scientific fields that are not attractive from a profit-oriented aspect, i.e., from the standpoint of “return on investment.”
Medical sciences, social sciences, the humanities and the arts, and even a large part of research in agriculture that is not linked to profitable agro-companies, survive almost exclusively thanks to budget financing and the work of universities. This is especially true for basic research, as the business sector mainly engages in applied and experimental research. These sciences are also under a kind of pressure from the all-encompassing commodification at the expense of their essential social role, which can be interpreted as a structural neglect of those forms of knowledge tasked with asking uncomfortable questions.
It is always important to remind ourselves that science is not an end in itself, but a means for building a fairer, freer, and better society. According to Eurobarometer data, only 40.5% of respondents in Serbia express trust in science.
This data does not reflect solely the existence of some kind of irrational anti-science positions and doubt in the scientific method in a cognitive sense, but also, to a certain extent, a rational distrust of science as a social and politically conditioned practice, that is, as a response to a system in which the results of scientific research and experimental development do not always fulfil societal expectations, that is, do not align with their perceived interests or priorities.
Therefore, the first step towards change is not simply more money for science, but more science in the public interest.
Author: Siniša Borota, Sociologist, Institute for Development and Innovation
