How "dependency theory" explains Open Science's funding crisis

Dependency theory explains how resources systematically flow from the "periphery" of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to the wealthy "core," reinforcing structural inequalities. Samir Amin argued that peripheral nations cannot truly catch up within a capitalist world economy, because the system is inherently polarising: the centre maintains monopolies that secure continued dominance—including over knowledge production—unless countries "delink" from Eurocentric systems and pursue their own autonomous development models.Open Science has now become another arena where this dynamic plays out. A small number of Western institutions, philanthropies, and NGOs in the Global North largely control the funding ecosystem. If you trace most grassroots Open Science projects back a few steps, you will often find the same funders. This is dependency theory in practice, only repackaged as “openness.” It forces us to ask difficult questions: Who decides what counts as Open Science? Who sets the priorities? What happens if these funders’ agendas shift—or if they withdraw altogether? And could these same funders actively challenge the power dynamics in countries that are not aligned with the West?Discussions of diversity, inclusion, decolonisation, and participation often miss the bigger picture. While the Global North presents itself as generous, providing about £130 billion in aid annually to the Global South, the structural reality is that around £5 trillion flows the other way each year. The Global South therefore loses a net £3 trillion annually—roughly twenty-four times the value of the aid it receives. Yet Open Science continues to perpetuate the narrative that Global South countries need charitable assistance or participation grants, when in fact they are resource-rich nations restrained by rules and policies designed in the Global North.As Ha-Joon Chang reminds us, citing Dom Hélder Câmara: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” The point is not about charity—it is about confronting an economic system that structurally produces inequality. Poor countries do not need pity or temporary grants; they need justice and structural change.Seen in this light, Trump 2.0 is not an anomaly. It exposes what has always been present in the system. The moment challenges us to ask whether our surface-level EDI and “decolonisation” efforts are producing meaningful change, or if they are little more than performance.Real transformation means moving beyond performative fixes to research culture. The mission of Open Science should not be to create yet another subordinate system under the guise of “openness.” Instead, it should be about shifting from charity to solidarity, from aid to genuine ownership.This talk was presented at OpenFest 2025 organised by the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University