The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Collapse of Argentine Science Under Javier Milei: One Year of Unprecedented Defunding
Open accessAbstract
This article critically examines the systematic erosion of Argentina's public science ecosystem during the first year of President Javier Milei's administration, highlighting the broader implications for the nation’s socio-economic and geopolitical landscape. Drawing on prior forecasts of a decline in scientific support, I assess the immediate and long-term ramifications of the government's decision to defund key scientific institutions and initiatives. By reviewing recent reports and government actions, I argue that Milei's policies —characterized by devastating budget cuts exceeding 32% of R&D public investment, large-scale layoffs of researchers, and the suspension of critical projects— jeopardize Argentina’s status as a scientific leader in Latin America. These measures threaten to dismantle decades of progress in Argentina’s scientific community, undermining its capacity to drive innovation, address pressing national challenges, and maintain global research collaborations. Public science has long served as a pillar for technological development and social well-being, playing an irreplaceable role in confronting issues such as public health, agriculture, and climate change. In this context, I argue that Milei's approach not only weakens Argentina’s scientific foundations but also jeopardizes its capacity for sustainable, autonomous growth. Unless immediate policy reversals are enacted, these actions will exacerbate existing social inequalities, accelerate the exodus of intellectual talent, and inflict long-lasting damage on Argentina’s capacity for self-determined development, ultimately isolating the country from vital global scientific networks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bauer, M. W. (2025) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.70028 · Cited by 19
“Yet this “austerity as virtue” has arguably triggered a collapse of administrative capacity in social welfare, education, and scientific infrastructure—what critics call “adjustment by attrition” (Debat 2024; Rius-Ulldemolins and Verdenelli 2025).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Debat, H.
- Affiliations
- National Agricultural Technology Institute (AR)
- Corresponding author
- Debat, Humberto
- ORCID
- Debat, Humberto
- Venue
- Infonomy
- Published
- 2025-03-21
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2990-2290 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408649140
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 41.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- INFONOMY (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Demography › Science, Technology, and Education in Latin America
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- Javier Milei, science policy, research funding cuts, public research institutions, research and development budget, brain drain, innovation, Argentina
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review