Part 3 of a three-part series on strengthening research and higher education in Madagascar – by Sarobidy Rakotonarivo
Better rules and stronger accountability matter, but they are not enough. Even well-governed universities and research institutions cannot deliver high-quality teaching, rigorous research or meaningful public service without sustained investment in people, infrastructure and research support.
What project funding can—and cannot—build
Since returning to Madagascar in 2020, I have been fortunate to secure international research grants that allowed me to build Mitsilo, recruit and train young researchers, collect high-quality data and collaborate with colleagues in Madagascar and abroad. Those grants have supported work on climate-smart agriculture, migration, protected-area governance, restoration and rural livelihoods. They have also created opportunities for students and early-career researchers who might otherwise have had very few.
But every grant is temporary. Each comes with a fixed budget, a defined timetable and priorities set partly by the funder. A grant can pay for a survey, a field team or a workshop. It rarely pays for the institution that makes all of this possible: reliable internet, financial management, data systems, maintenance, libraries, ethics review, technical staff or long-term mentoring.
External grants can finance projects. They cannot, on their own, build and maintain a national research system.
Research is not a luxury
Public investment in higher education and research is sometimes treated as a secondary concern, particularly in a country facing so many urgent social and economic needs. Yet universities and research institutions produce the teachers, doctors, agronomists, engineers, economists, administrators and scientists on whom every other sector depends.
Research also helps governments avoid costly mistakes. In my own field, locally grounded evidence can improve decisions on climate adaptation, agriculture, migration, forest conservation and protected-area governance. Policies designed using evidence from elsewhere do not always translate well to Malagasy realities. A country that does not invest in producing its own knowledge becomes dependent on assumptions made by others.
What underinvestment looks like
The effects of underinvestment are visible in everyday academic life: ageing laboratories, weak connectivity, inadequate libraries, crowded workspaces, poor sanitation and unreliable equipment. These are not minor inconveniences. They affect the dignity of students, the productivity of staff, the reliability of scientific work and the credibility of institutions with national and international partners.
I have often seen talented researchers spend extraordinary amounts of time solving basic logistical problems that should not consume their energy: finding a functioning workspace, securing access to software, repairing equipment, managing grant administration with too little support or improvising systems for storing and protecting data. Individual perseverance can keep a project alive, but it is a poor substitute for institutional capacity.
People are the core research infrastructure
Investment must also mean investing in people. Low and uncertain remuneration pushes many academics and researchers towards consultancy work or multiple jobs. This is often a rational response to financial reality, not a sign of weak commitment. But it inevitably reduces the time available for teaching, supervision, research and institutional service.
The same applies to early-career researchers, technicians, laboratory staff, data managers, accountants and research administrators. At Mitsilo, I have learned how much good research depends on people whose contributions are rarely visible in publications. A national research system cannot be built around a few senior academics while everyone else moves from one short-term contract to another.
Build a modest national research financing system
Madagascar does not need to begin with a very large research fund. A modest, transparent national competitive scheme could already make a difference, particularly for early-career researchers, interdisciplinary teams and work addressing national policy priorities. Small grants, awarded through credible external review and followed by public reporting, could help researchers develop ideas before they are ready for international funding.
Universities and public research organisations should also be allowed to retain and transparently manage reasonable overheads from external grants. These resources could support financial systems, ethics review, shared equipment, data management and maintenance, the institutional functions that donors and research partners from the Global North often assume already exist.
Invest selectively and protect access
Greater investment must come with prioritisation and accountability. Not every programme, building or institution should receive the same funding regardless of quality or public value. Resources should favour accredited programmes, shared infrastructure, credible maintenance plans and research schemes whose criteria and outcomes are publicly reported.
Nor should the cost be shifted mainly to students. Public universities remain essential for those who cannot afford private alternatives. Continuing education, research contracts, philanthropy, alumni contributions and carefully governed partnerships can diversify resources, but they should complement rather than replace the state’s responsibility.
A short investment agenda
– Provide predictable core funding for essential teaching, maintenance, sanitation, connectivity and libraries.
– Create a transparent national competitive research fund, beginning with modest grants.
– Improve remuneration and establish credible early-career, technical and research-support positions.
– Allow institutions to retain and account transparently for reasonable overheads from external grants.
– Prioritise shared laboratories, data systems and research-support services rather than duplicating expensive infrastructu
Talent is not a substitute for a system
The first article in this series argued that scientific merit should be assessable beyond administrative status. The second argued that many governance reforms can begin without major new spending. But better rules and individual excellence can only go so far.
Madagascar already has talented students, committed lecturers and researchers capable of producing internationally respected work. What it lacks is not potential, but a durable system capable of financing, supporting and retaining that potential.