![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
In his response to Henrik Secher Marcussen, Sørbø argues that a main objective of the review of Danish development research was to remove the considerable ambiguities and uncertainties existing in the relationship between Danida and the Danish research community. The structures in place contributed to such ambiguity. Contrary to what Secher Marcussen seems to imply, it was not recommended that all funds for research should be aligned more closely to the needs of Danida. The report written by Sørbø and Helland presented two main options, and one of them would imply a transfer of the Council for Development Research (RUF) to the Danish research council structure. An alternative option would imply a more active Danida engagement towards RUF. Sørbø sees no contradiction in arguing, on the one hand, that Nordic development research is overly dependent on funds from the aid budgets, and, on the other hand, that it is important to improve the relationship between Danida and the Danish research community. The point is that funds are still scarce in relation to needs and challenges that go far beyond the concerns of donor agencies and foreign affairs ministries.