Photo: Werner Campelo / Adobe Stock
By Ana Lucia Kassouf, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Sao Paulo, and Lucas Ronconi, Professor of Economics, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Both are PEP Research Fellows
When researchers from the Global South (low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America) lead studies on their countries, they are significantly more likely to publish work that addresses what local populations say actually matters. Yet the vast majority of studies on these countries are authored by researchers from the Global North (high-income countries, particularly North America and Western Europe). This gap raises an important question about who leads and produces knowledge in development economics, whose perspectives are reflected in it, and how the research agenda is driven.
A growing body of evidence shows that researchers located in less-developed countries are underrepresented in development economics. One illustrative example is the NBER Development Economics Program, whose 190 members are all based in the United States and Canada. The objective of the programme is to study the forces that contribute to economic development, particularly in less-developed nations. This raises a basic question about institutional design. Is this the ideal arrangement to advance knowledge on development challenges? Can research on poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America be fully informed by scholars who are geographically and socially distant from these contexts?
In a recent paper, we explore whether the topics covered in leading economics journals reflect the priorities identified by local populations and how this gap varies by the institutional location of authors. We link societal concerns, measured through nationally representative opinion surveys from the Pew Research Center, with publication data indexed in Scopus. This allows us to compare research agendas with local priorities.
We find that most journal articles covering less-developed countries between 2002 and 2023 are authored by Northern researchers alone, accounting for 63% of papers. Around 27% are co-authored by Northern and Southern researchers, and less than 10% are authored solely by Southern researchers. Our key finding is that Southern authored papers are more likely to address topics considered very important by local populations, at 58%, compared with 46% for Northern authored papers and 48% for co-authored papers. Figure 1 presents these differences across author groups.
To make this more concrete, consider that surveys in several low-income countries consistently show that access to basic healthcare and local job opportunities rank among the top public concerns. However, much of the research produced by Northern-based authors has tended to focus on broader methodological questions or cross-country comparative issues that do not always align directly with these locally stated priorities. This gap matters because when research agendas are not closely aligned with lived concerns, policy recommendations may miss the most immediate constraints faced by populations.
This pattern suggests that proximity and first-hand experience play an important role in shaping research relevance. These characteristics, often undervalued in mainstream economics, may give Southern researchers a comparative advantage in identifying and understanding the most pressing development challenges. At the same time, researchers based in the Global North continue to make important contributions, particularly in terms of methodological and empirical innovation. The issue is not contribution but imbalance. Northern-based institutions dominate research on the Global South, even when they may lack detailed contextual knowledge of the environments they study.
We see why this matters in development interventions that fail to achieve expected outcomes when local institutional constraints are not fully understood. In contrast, programmes designed with strong input from locally embedded researchers have often shown better uptake and more sustained impact. This highlights the value of incorporating contextual knowledge into research design, rather than relying solely on externally generated evidence.
The underrepresentation of Southern researchers, combined with the dominance of Northern authorship, suggests that current research agendas do not fully reflect local priorities. If research is to better serve the populations it studies, then scholars from the Global South must play a leading role in shaping it.
Our findings highlight the need for a shift in development economics research. This is a call to action for journal editors, funders and research programmes. Journal editors should actively broaden representation among reviewers and authors from Global South institutions. Funders should require meaningful Southern leadership in research design, not only co-authorship. Research programmes focused on development should set clear targets for geographic and institutional diversity in authorship and agenda setting.
Based on research supported by PEP contributing to the body of evidence on Increasing Global Southern Participation in Development Economics
PEP Working Paper 2025-11 First-Hand Experience, Relevance and Coverage in Development Economics Research. Are we studying all topics that really matter?
Also published as Topical disconnect between research and needs: the importance of author location in Third World Quarterly, pp. 1–16, 13 August 2026
Related posts
Leading with Local Evidence: How Southern Voices Shaped Development Thinking in 2025
By Prof. Jane Mariara
In this issue, Prof. Jane Mariara brings together the lessons she has shared throughout 2025 to put forward the case for why sustainable development cannot be imported and that local challenges require locally-led solutions.
