Armenia’s draft state budget for 2027 envisages no substantial changes to science and research funding, while expenditure as a share of GDP continues to decline. According to Gituzh initiative member Tigran Shahverdyan, this contradicts the government’s strategic objectives. Those objectives envisage bringing science funding to 1% of GDP by 2030–2031.
Science funding’s share of GDP continues to fall
Shahverdyan said the draft 2027 budget could still undergo changes. However, the government’s acceptance of it provides a basis for assessing its current priorities.
“If we look at how much is planned for science and technology, or research and development, it amounts to approximately 0.25% of GDP in 2027. This indicator has been declining since 2024. In 2024, we allocated 0.38%,” he said.
According to his figures, science funding has also declined in absolute terms over the past two years, by around 18% overall. A certain nominal increase is planned for science funding alone in 2027. However, research and development expenditure as a share of GDP continues to fall.
The figure is approximately 0.27% in 2026, compared with around 0.25% planned for 2027. Thus, some growth in absolute funding does not translate into a higher share of scientific expenditure relative to the economy.
The government pledged to raise science expenditure to 1% of GDP
Shahverdyan said the situation is particularly concerning because the strategic science development programme adopted earlier this year set a target of 1% of GDP by 2030. Public funding was supposed to account for 0.75 percentage points of that total.
He noted that the same objective was reaffirmed in the government’s new five-year programme. It envisages bringing science expenditure to 1% of GDP by 2031. Although the new programme does not clearly specify the breakdown of that target, Shahverdyan believes the previous strategic objective has not been cancelled but postponed by one year.
“If earlier funding reductions could partly be explained by the absence of a strategic programme, although that was also difficult to understand, a question now arises. The government has adopted a programme requiring it to increase funding. Yet for next year, it plans lower expenditure than this year as a share of GDP,” Shahverdyan said.
Annual growth of around 40% is needed
According to Shahverdyan’s calculations, the government would need to deliver a sharp and sustained increase in funding over the coming years to meet its own target. That target would bring public spending on science to 0.75% of GDP.
He said moving from the current level of approximately 0.27% to 0.75% by 2030 would require public expenditure to increase by around 40% annually on average. This calculation also takes GDP growth into account.
“Can you imagine that? I have calculated it, and if we start this year, funding would need to increase by approximately 40% on average every year to reach their desired level by 2030,” he said.
According to Shahverdyan, the objective of increasing science funding is already enshrined in two government programmes. However, the expenditure proposed in the draft 2027 budget does not match the trajectory needed to achieve it.
“We have this government target, set out in two programmes, yet we are planning lower expenditure next year than this year,” the Gituzh initiative member stressed.
Reduced support could lead to the loss of researchers
According to Bagrat Grigoryan, director of the CANDLE Synchrotron Research Institute, existing mechanisms in the science sector may no longer be sufficient to achieve the stated objectives. He finds the possible reduction in support for young researchers particularly concerning. They base their professional plans on the state strategy and its planned funding.
Grigoryan believes an abrupt revision of support could have irreversible consequences for the country. If young specialists can no longer work in science, they will have to seek other sources of income. Competitive scientists will not remain unemployed for long, he said, because qualified specialists are in demand worldwide.
The scientist also warned that freezing programmes could disrupt the scientific infrastructure developed in recent years. Research institutions have received modern equipment, and mechanisms have been established for different institutes to share it. If programmes are halted, expensive equipment could remain unused.
According to Grigoryan, Armenia’s own scientific and technological capabilities are particularly important in artificial intelligence, technology and mining. Recruiting foreign specialists in these areas could increase project costs and reduce competitiveness.
Freezing programmes could disrupt continuity between scientific generations
Hayk Sargsyan, a laboratory head at the Institute of Applied Problems of Physics and an associate member of Armenia’s National Academy of Sciences, said recent initiatives had helped attract young specialists into science. These included salary increases supported by core funding and grant programmes.
He highlighted the particular importance of postdoctoral programmes and five-year grants for advanced research. They enabled the creation of research teams, the recruitment of young scientists, the establishment of laboratories and long-term planning.
The possible freezing of programmes has already created uncertainty among specialists who had arranged with foreign partners to relocate to Armenia and work there. Sargsyan believes this situation seriously damages the country’s reputation. It could also undermine confidence in future scientific programmes.
The scientist also warned of the risk of another staffing crisis. Earlier departures had created a generational gap in Armenian science. Recent programmes had helped gradually bridge that gap. However, a mass departure of young researchers could once again disrupt continuity between scientific generations.
According to Sargsyan, scientific results do not always deliver a quick economic return. The state must therefore consistently fund strategically important research, regardless of changes in government or political priorities. In his assessment, science underpins technological development and the strengthening of the economy and national security.
👉 Economy