Content uploaded by Ann Waters-Bayer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ann Waters-Bayer on Jul 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparison of frameworks for studying grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS)
Amanuel Assefa1, Ann Waters-Bayer2, Robert Fincham3 and Maxwell Mudahara4
1 Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa / Agri-Service Ethiopia (ASE)
2 Senior Advisor, ETC EcoCulture, Netherlands
3 Director, Centre for Environment, Agriculture and Development (CEAD), University of
KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa
4 Deputy Director, Farmer Support Group, CEAD, UKZN, South Africa
Corresponding author’s name and address:
Amanuel Assefa
P O Box 2460, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Telephone: +251-1-4655515 or +251-911-225683
E-mail: kidus_aman@yahoo.com
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
1
Comparison of frameworks for studying grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS)
ABSTRACT
The history of agricultural research and development (R&D) has never been static. Its philosophies,
concepts and principles continue to change and to impact on present-day practices. It is imperative
to understand and draw lessons from the old and new perspectives, which inform agricultural R&D
processes and policy formulation in developing countries. The interest of this paper is, therefore, to
draw relevant lessons that can explain the dynamics of the innovation systems at the grassroots in
sub-Saharan Africa in particular. It analyzes the adequacy of two widely known agricultural R&D
perspectives and examines how those perspectives could be applied to the grassroots innovation
systems in sub-Saharan Africa, which are often characterized by subsistence agriculture, complex
issues around the notion of poverty, environmental problems, and limited access to national and
international markets.
The Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) and the Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) perspectives are the main focus of analysis in this paper, which is organized to look
into the epistemological and methodological aspects of those perspectives, describing briefly their
differences and complementarities as well as their relevance to study grassroots innovation systems
in sub-Saharan Africa. “Relevancy” of the AIS and AKIS perspectives to grassroots innovation
systems cannot, however, be adequately explained and analyzed just by reviewing literature on
theoretical discourses and frameworks. It is necessary to look at practice. Although it is not easy to
find ”representative” case studies that could properly demonstrate application of the thoughts,
assumptions and principles of the theories, this paper has reviewed two recent studies that raise
critical issues. This review seeks to understand how AKIS and AIS perspectives are used in the
real-world situation of smallholder farmers and the overall innovation system in developing
countries. It is based on an analytical and comparative study of AKIS in several mainly developing
countries, commissioned by FAO, and a study on AIS in six developing countries, commissioned
by the World Bank. The latter covered 12 case studies on selected enterprises. Five of the case
studies were reviewed to extract lessons on AIS. The links of the theoretical discourse and the
practical experiences coming out of the two studies provide indications as to what is most relevant
to the situation of the grassroots innovation systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
Keywords: innovation systems, innovation theory, agricultural research, smallholder farmers, sub-
Saharan Africa
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
2
Comparison of frameworks for studying grassroots innovation: Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) and Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS)
GRASSROOTS INNOVATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
“Grassroots agricultural innovation system” refers here to the interface of endogenous and
exogenous innovation in the farming systems of smallholders, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists,
referred to henceforth as “farmers”. In these systems in sub-Saharan Africa, the economic base is
usually subsistence agriculture. Great natural resource challenges affect the lives of the resource
users and their actions, in turn, affect the environment. Since the local people struggle
tremendously to survive and external forces of various interests are intervening strongly, there are
complex dynamics of exogenous and endogenous innovation. “Exogenous agricultural innovation
system” refers to all innovation interventions into the grassroots system that are initiated and
controlled mainly by outsiders and intended to improve local livelihoods and the environment, e.g.
the interventions of research, extension, the private sector, NGOs, financial organizations etc to
introduce new technologies, new methods, new services, products, processes, and new institutional
arrangements. “Endogenous agricultural innovation system” refers to new initiatives and
innovation processes of the local people (groups or individuals), trying to address the issues of
poverty and the environment and includes the interwoven interactions of the technical, institutional,
marketing or management innovation performances of the local people. Exogenous or endogenous
innovation systems differ primarily according to the sources of the innovations and the goals of the
actors involved. In real-life situations, it is not common to see an independently standing
endogenous innovation system or exogenous innovation system. A mix of both is typical for many
of the grassroots innovation systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
RECENTLY EMERGING PERSPECTIVES ON INNOVATION SYSTEMS
Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS)
The AKIS perspective emerged as a response to the challenges of the theory of adoption and
diffusion of innovations, which was preoccupied with studying why and how people come to adopt
or not to adopt new agricultural innovations and practices (Leeuwis 2004). The theory of transfer,
adoption and diffusion of technologies has formed a solid foundation for the National Agricultural
Research System (NARS) perspective. It has long been used in many countries and. the use of this
model is not yet "history"; it still continues to dominate in many institutions of the developing
world. The legacy of the relatively remarkable success of the “Green Revolution” in agriculture of
India and other Asian countries continues to influence many policymakers, researchers and
extension institutions in the developing world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The linear
technology-transfer model provides a huge opportunity for the accumulation of power at the centre.
Politicians and policymakers whose governments are characterized by centralized control of power
and a command economy tend to adopt this linear model, as it enables them to control the system
comfortably, without having to be involved in the complex challenges of knowledge management
in the real world. For these reasons, it is not easy for a paradigm shift to take place in many of the
developing countries, although the theorization of AKIS has tried to overcome the limitations of the
NARS perspective and the subsequent policy and institutional arrangements.
AKIS is a result of a large number of "formative experiences” of applied social scientists who have
tried to come to grips with the complex phenomena of facilitating innovation, primarily in
agriculture (Röling 1996). The concept of AKIS was developed by Röling in the early 1990s as a
diagnostic framework that helps to discern the organizational forms that enable or constrain
knowledge processes such as generation, transformation and use of knowledge and information
(Engel 1997). It is broadly defined by Röling (1992) as “… the articulated set of actors, networks
and organizations, expected or managing to work synergically to support knowledge processes
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
3
which improve the correspondence between knowledge and environment and/or the control
provided through technologies use in a given domain of human activity…”
AKIS demands a radical policy shift from strengthening research or extension institutions, which is
very typical for the NARS, to strengthening linkages and communication that should take place
among the system actors. Unlike in the NARS perspective, in AKIS farmers are not merely
receivers of technology from research organizations via extension. The new actor configuration in
AKIS suggests: all system actors have a stake in the process of generating, disseminating and using
knowledge. Learning about the stock of knowledge in the system actors and creating a platform for
the interaction of the actors to facilitate the generation of new knowledge and utilization of same,
are the main principles in AKIS. The emerging and extensive use of many participatory approaches
to R&D (such as Participatory Technology Development, Farmer Field Schools, Participatory
Innovation Development, Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems etc) are the logical
follow-up of the paradigm shift from the linear model to multiple-source models of innovation such
as AKIS.
There are also some critiques of AKIS. Leeuwis (2004) finds that it looks at knowledge generation
and use without considering the influence of political and other forces in the system and therefore
cannot yield a complete and realistic analysis. Hall (2006) comments that the AKIS concept still
focuses on research supply but gives more attention to links between research, education and
extension and to identifying farmers’ demand for new technology. Whether AKIS regards the
formal research system as the only supplier of knowledge or whether it recognizes the capacity of
other system actors to generate agricultural knowledge is an important issue that may help to draw
a line between the NARS, the AKIS and the recently developed Agricultural Innovation Systems
(AIS) perspectives. This issue, including other concepts that show the divide between and
similarities of the different perspectives, is discussed later in this paper.
Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS)
The innovation systems perspective has become increasingly important in explaining how
innovation takes place and how and by whom benefits are gained out of complex technological and
institutional change processes. The theoretical framework of innovation systems was first used to
explain processes in the “developed” world, which are highly governed by the rules of a free
market economy and more or less democratic governance systems. Industrial innovation is
characterized by technology change in manufacturing, with emphasis on market opportunities and
institutional changes. At industrial level, the oldest thinking about production was that: it happens
as a result of the activities in the firm. In 1841, List brought the earliest description of “a national
system of political economy”, which is a precursor of the innovation systems concept. It assumes
that production results not only from the activities of the firm but also from the social and
economic institutions (education, infrastructure etc) that make production possible (Lundvall et al
2002, quoted in Spielman 2005). This created the basis for the rise of systems thinking in the
industrial development arena. An innovation system can be defined as a network of organizations,
enterprises and individuals focused on bringing new products, new processes and new forms of
organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behavior
and performance. The innovation systems concept embraces not only the science suppliers but the
totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation. It extends beyond the creation of
knowledge to encompass the factors affecting demand for and use of knowledge in novel and
useful ways (Hall 2006).
Lessons from applying the innovations systems perspective in the industrialized world have been
used to conceptualize the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) perspective. This has added value
to the conventional, linear perspective on agricultural R&D, by providing a framework for
analyzing complex relationships and innovative processes that occur among multiple agents, social
and economic institutions, and endogenously determined technological and institutional
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
4
opportunities (Spielman 2005). Given its industrial origin, current studies of AIS place much
emphasis on the market and other institutional forces that affect innovation processes in agriculture.
Commercially important agricultural commodities that have greater value in national and global
markets have attracted the attention of many authors working in developing countries. The
analytical framework used by AIS is indeed helpful to study how innovation systems emerge, are
coordinated and function, and how innovation performances are influenced by market and non-
market forces in the context of market-led economic systems.
A broader characterization of innovation and innovation processes, viewed by some innovation
system thinkers, has been summarized by Hall (2006) as follows:
Innovations are new creations of social and economic significance. They may be brand new, but
are more often combinations of existing elements.
Innovation can compromise radical improvements but usually consists of many small
improvements in a continuous process of upgrading.
These improvements may be of a technical, managerial, institutional (that is, the way things are
routinely done) or policy nature.
Often, innovations involve a combination of technical, institutional and other changes.
Innovation processes can be triggered in many ways, e.g. bottlenecks in production within a
firm, changes in available technology, competitive conditions, international trade rules,
domestic regulations and environmental health concerns.
KNOWLEDGE, INVENTION AND INNOVATION IN NARS, AKIS AND AIS
Some authors distinguish between invention and innovation. Often, “invention” refers to the first
occurrence of an idea for a new product or process, while innovation is the first attempt to put the
invention into practice. Invention is a new product, whereas innovation is a new value that brings
benefits to improve human and environmental well-being. Drucker (1985) relates innovation with
the market, saying that, if an innovation is product-oriented, it will create a "technology miracle"
without creating the required benefits. Similarly, Baeon (quoted in Anandajayasekeram 2005)
describes innovation as the economically successful use of invention, while invention is a solution
to a problem. Bringing a “solution to a problem” in its broader sense is also a characteristic and
purpose of innovation, but inventions provide only “knowledge solution” in a “restricted territory”
and the narrowly defined context of the designers. Inventions may remain like miracle thoughts,
practices or methods with limited application in the real world, if they are not transformed into
innovations by entering into the complex relations and interactions of people and institutions in
wider socio-economic, cultural and political contexts.
The NARS perspective does not make important distinctions between knowledge, invention and
innovation. It is based on a belief that scientific research is the only supplier of knowledge and the
types of knowledge created through the rigorous scientific process are new inventions, regarded as
innovations. The process of generating new knowledge in the controlled environment of scientists
is called an innovation process. Therefore, innovations are the products of scientific research work,
of which the world is expected to make use. They are not products of social processes that take
place as a result of the complex interaction of actors also outside the research system.
AKIS views innovation differently. It is not the desired outcome of a researcher or a group of
researchers working in a controlled environment, in isolation from the bigger system, but rather the
desired outcome of the knowledge system made up of multiple social actors with complex and
interrelated missions and functions (Engel 1997). In contrast to Hall’s (2006) comments that AKIS
focuses on research supply, the AKIS perspective does not see research as the sole supplier of
knowledge, but as an important partner of other social actors engaged in generating and using
knowledge. AKIS gives attention to the knowledge network in the system, recognizing the
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
5
contribution of the actors in the network to creating the body of knowledge, bringing substantial
inputs for innovations to take place. The purpose of an AKIS is to facilitate continuous innovation
in agriculture-related practices. The individual innovation performances of farmers, particularly the
creative and new practices in farming and natural resource management (NRM), bring new socio-
economic values to the users, and cannot be seen in isolation from the inputs of the other system
actors. Röling (1996) describes innovation as a result of interaction among different actors making
complementary contributions. Leeuwis (2004) shares this view and describes an innovation as a
package of new social and technical arrangements and practices that implies a new form of
coordination within a network of interrelated actors.
An important addition of the AIS to the AKIS perspective is the fact that AIS is concerned with a
system made up of innovations that may take place at different knowledge fronts, such as the
formal research system, the private sector, the technology delivery agencies, farmers and other
social actors in the broader policy, cultural and institutional environment. This perspective is taken
because of the significant influence of current world economic and social development,
characterized by transformation in knowledge-generation processes from being elite controlled to a
“knowledge society”, from using papers to store and share knowledge to using digital media and
the web, and from research as the key tool to generate knowledge to search and consultation (Hall
2006). In the AIS perspective, innovation management is given greater importance than knowledge
management, which is an important aspect of AKIS.
In AIS, as in AKIS, the innovation process does not always starts with research and the knowledge
coming from research does not necessarily create new practice or values. Rather, AIS underscores
that it is only within the innovation system that knowledge and information from various sources
interact to bring new phenomena desired by the system actors. Hall (2006) suggests that invention
culminates in the supply (creation) of knowledge, but innovation encompasses the factors affecting
demand for and use of knowledge in novel and useful ways. The notion of novelty is fundamental
to invention, but the notion of creating local change, new to the user, is fundamental to innovation.
Verkaik (1997, quoted in Leeuwis 2004) also suggests that, in the innovation process, knowledge
and ideas need to be translated into skills and technologies and subsequently into real socio-
technical innovation. Innovation is not just about research findings but the transformation of those
findings into socially and economically valued products.
Table 1: Defining features of NARS, AKIS and AIS perspectives related to agricultural innovation
systems
Defining feature NARS AKISaAIS
Purpose Planning capacity for
agricultural research,
technology development
and technology transfer
Strengthening
communication and
knowledge delivery services
to people in the rural sector
Strengthening the capacity to
innovate throughout the
agricultural production and
marketing system
Actors National agricultural
research organizations,
agricultural universities
or faculties of agriculture,
extension services and
farmers
National agricultural
research organizations,
agricultural universities or
faculties of agriculture,
extension services, farmers,
NGOs and entrepreneurs in
rural areas
Potentially all actors in the
public and private sectors
involved in creating,
diffusing, adapting and using
all types of knowledge
relevant to agricultural
production and marketing
Outcome Technology invention
and technology transfer
Technology adoption and
innovation in agricultural
production
Combinations of technical
and institutional innovations
throughout the production,
marketing, policy research
and enterprise domains
Organizing Using science to create Accessing agricultural New uses of knowledge for
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
6
principle inventions knowledge social and economic change
Mechanism for
innovation
Transfer of technology Interactive learning Interactive learning
Degree of market
integration
Nil Low High
Role of policy Resource allocation,
priority setting
Enabling framework Integrated components and
enabling framework
Nature of
capacity
strengthening
Infrastructure and human
resource development
Strengthening
communication between
actors in rural areas
Strengthening interactions
between actors; institutional
development and change to
support interaction, learning
and innovation; creating an
enabling environment
Source: as defined by FAO and World Bank (2002), adapted from Hall (2006).
Methodological reflections on AKIS and AIS
In the last two decades, the development and use of organized principles, procedures and tools to
help study the relationship of the system actors in generating, disseminating and using agricultural
knowledge was the focus area of AKIS. Different approaches are used to describe the AKIS at
national level or the specific interactions that take place at sector level. The conventional survey
method accompanied by interviews and focus-group discussions could also be used to describe the
state of the art, but there are also well-thought through and carefully designed methodological
approaches that go beyond describing the status of AKIS.
Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) is a social research methodology
that is useful to describe the status of AKIS and to facilitate agricultural innovation, by focusing on
the social organization of innovation (Engel 1997). This methodology has three distinct phases.
Phase 1 focuses on defining the problem situation with the concerned actors in an interactive way
and identifying the diverse system actors that have important stakes in the innovation process.
Phase 2 is a detailed study of the linkages and communication between the system actors,
knowledge networks, coordination and the broader environment in which the innovation process is
taking place. Phase 3 is a feedback session for the stakeholders to validate the findings and reach
consensus on them, and to design joint action to enhance the innovation process, so as to overcome
constraints caused by weak or lacking linkages and communication and limited sharing of
knowledge and resources among the actors. The plan of action also benefits from the interaction
and debate of the system actors during the course of the study and in the stakeholder workshop. A
known problem situation that constrains innovation processes is taken as an entry point for a
RAAKS exercise. The methodology is best used when diverse actors are involved in the action
research and a well-trained facilitator is carefully handling the interactive process.
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) is another methodological approach that is based on
the principles and assumptions of the AKIS perspective. It refers to joint experimentation and
investigation by farmers and development agents and, wherever possible, formal researchers to
discover ways of improving farmers’ livelihoods. The focus is on developing technological
innovations through equitable and active participation of farmers, extension workers and scientists.
This methodology has tried to overcome the limitations of the NARS perspective, in which the
research process – including agenda setting, data collection, analysis and reporting – is controlled
and owned by the researchers and their peers in the formal sector.
As entry point, PTD takes agricultural problems often identified by farmers but also sometimes by
researchers and other experts. The most challenging aspect of this exercise is the process of
blending farmers’ and outsiders' knowledge in a manner that they complement each other and bring
new value relevant for local realities. This requires an attitude of respect and honesty among the
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
7
participating actors. If scientists cannot recognize the initiatives of resource-poor farmers, if they
cannot appreciate the knowledge and reasoning behind the farmers’ informal research and
development efforts, if they cannot understand the social settings and motivations of the innovators,
then they cannot be effective in engaging in research and development partnership with rural
communities to alleviate poverty, increase food production and seek sustainable development
(Waters-Bayer & Bayer 2005). The PTD framework has six phases: getting to know each other,
looking for things to try, designing experiments jointly, trying things out (implementing joint
experiments), sharing results and sustaining the process (Reijntjes et al 1992). Numerous other
approaches such as Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) share the
same philosophy and principles of PTD, and can be grouped under the broad framework of PTD.
Participatory Innovation Development (PID) is a recently coined term to describe local innovation
processes that take place with the support of outsiders. It broadly shares the philosophy and
principles of PTD but has wider dimensions that PTD, which is more limited to the development of
technology in the inner circle of farmers, researchers and extension workers. The unique feature of
PID is that its entry point is not a known or defined problem situation but a local innovation, which
emerges out of the creativity of the local people. The main purpose of PID is to enhance innovation
processes that emanate from the local people, with the support of outsiders on technical,
methodological, institutional and policy dimensions as well as making use of emerging
opportunities relevant to the local innovation, such as market, policy, networks etc. The second
important distinguishing feature of PID is that it deals with not only technical innovation, but also
institutional, market, organizational, management, cultural and other forms of social innovation.
PID uses the broader framework of PTD; a modified framework that helps accommodate the new
values and dimensions of PID has yet to emerge.
The AIS perspective focuses on the dynamics of innovation processes, departing from important
aspects such as knowledge, institutional changes, market forces and policy environment. The
methodological approaches are new and still being tested, and some new methods and tools are still
required. The AIS perspective may use any social science research methodology such as qualitative
studies as well as descriptive methods to analyze and describe the innovation systems at national
level. The challenge is how to use the AIS perspective to facilitate innovation performances at
sector level or in a given domain of human activity. One limitation is that no specific and well-
thought through methodologies and tools are available to help design or facilitate innovation from
the AIS perspective. More often than not, studies are simply ex post descriptions of the dynamics
and complexities of some technological or institutional innovations – and there the analysis ends
(Spielman 2005). In the same text, Spielman also suggests the possibility of using a variety of
methodological approaches in the AIS, including:
Analysis of the costs and benefits of knowledge production or dissemination, given the
complexity of interactions among diverse agents
Methodologies used in studying social learning processes among agrarian agents
Benchmark or best-practice method, which was used by the OECD to study innovation systems
in industrialized countries
Game theory models that help break down interactions into key decision points and payoffs
(more applicable for knowledge-intensive sectors)
Agricultural Technology Management System (ATMS) analysis, which attempts to analyze
interrelationships within and between organizations and between organizations and external
environments to improve organizational design and management functions.
Hall (2006) has described the basic hypothesis of the methodological framework for AIS as
follows: the capacity for continuous innovation is a function of linkages, working practices and
policies that promote knowledge flow and learning among all actors within the sector. The
methodology is not, however, interested only in identifying the links or missing links in the system
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
8
but seeks to go beyond that and unpack the relationship further to analyze the underplaying causes
and its impacts on the system. Hall has broadly identified four major focus areas: sector timeline
and evolution, sector mapping, attitude and practice of organizations, and wider policy and support
structure in the methodology.
LESSONS DRAWN FROM COMPARISON
AIS
The following table is taken from the study conducted by Hall (2006) to assess the relevance of the
AIS approach. The study aimed to provide comprehensive conceptual and methodological feedback
on issues concerning AIS. Several authors were involved in the country case studies, but the full
papers of these studies are not annexed to the main report. Because the reflections below are based
only on the summary of findings that Hall presented in the main report, we cannot claim that the
analysis and conclusions in this paper are fully informed by the country case studies. The analytical
issues presented in Table 2 are important to reflect on the adequacy of the AIS perspective to study
innovation in grassroots systems of sub-Saharan Africa.
Table 2: Major ndings of the AIS study in ve sectors (Hall 2006)
Countries
included in
the studies
Sector focus Issues addressed
Innovation Environment Market Empowerment Sustainability
Bangladesh Commercial
shrimp
industry,
dominated
by export
companies
- Industry lacks
confidence in
research; interaction
with it is weak
- Ability of poor to
innovate
undermined
- Reactive approach
to problem solving
Environmental
polices not
enforced
because of
government
negligence
Market
relations well
developed
Social equity
need to be
addressed
Progress
required in
creation of
efficient sector
coordination
body
Bangladesh Home-based
small-scale
food
processing
sector that
accounts for
80% of total
industry
- Isolated and little
access to
information made it
difficult to meet
consumer
preference and
quality standards
- Weak tradition of
public research on
food processing
- NGOs provide
training on food
processing
- Sector lacked
credit and technical
skills to meet
hygienic standards
Not addressed Many rural
areas remain
physically
isolated from
the main urban
market in
Dhaka
Not addressed Not addressed,
recommenda-
tion focuses on
capacity
development
India Exportable
medicinal
plants,
growing in
response to
international
demands
- Large pharmaceu-
tical companies
developed
associated research
- Small family-
owned businesses
lack research
support
- Long-established
mistrust among
public research
Environmental
degradation
from the
destructive
harvesting of
plants
Sell tradi-
tional herbal
medicine at
local market
Large phar-
maceutical
industries
strongly linked
with
international
Not addressed Not addressed
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
9
organizations,
private sector and
NGOs
- Resistance to
hybridize scientific
and traditional
medicine
market
Ghana Pineapple
export
industry
- Developed own
individual experts
and research or
relied on foreign
advisors
- Public research
played minor role in
developing pine-
apple export market
- Assumption that
scientists’ work is
commercially
irrelevant, does not
address topics
significant to sector
- Universities are
disconnected from
the sector
Not addressed - Private sector
efficient in
multiplying
and
distributing
planting
materials
- Export
market is
continually
growing,
despite
growing
competition
and changing
preferences of
consumers
Inclusion of
small
producers
recommended
Not addressed,
focus of the
recommenda-
tion is on
improving
capacity and
coordination
Colombia Growing
cassava-
processing
agro-
industry
- Latin American
consortium for
cassava R&D and
regional consortium
of producer
countries have very
strong linkages to
national and
international
research
organizations,
including small-
scale farmers
- Apex
organizations link
with processing and
marketing
innovations
Not addressed - In 1990
structural
adjustment
pulled the
attention of
policymakers
to cassava
- Mid-90s
government
renewed
interest
- The industry
has strong
links to
domestic and
international
market
Not addressed Not addressed,
recommenda-
tion focuses on
market
research and
technological
innovation and
more
investment
from
government
The issue of innovation was addressed in Hall’s study from the viewpoint of the institutional
linkages that do or do not support innovation processes, most notably, the functional linkages of the
commercial sector and the public research institutions. The study shows the importance of the
private sector in the innovation process as a source of innovation performances, either from its own
research system or through hiring high-level professionals. However, the type of core innovation
performances (new technical, institutional or other social innovations) that determine the level of
complexity of the innovation systems are not spelled out well. The role of smallholder farmers in
the innovation process is addressed only in the Bangladesh shrimp-industry case, where the ability
of the poor to innovate is reportedly undermined. This indicates that the framework – specifically
the terms of reference for the study, which is based on the AIS framework – does not consider
farmers’ innovative capacity to be an important pillar of the AIS that deserves closer examination.
In grassroots innovation systems perspective, in contrast, the role of individual or groups of farmers
in innovating or in stimulating innovation processes is very important.
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
10
Human actions in innovation can have an impact on the environment, sometimes undesirable. It is
imperative to understand the relationship of human action and environmental impacts and try to
reverse, also prevent, those impacts whenever possible. In some of the case studies, human actions
had a very direct impact on the environment, e.g. the lack of policy enforcement in the shrimp
industry in Bangladesh, and the risk of destroying the natural herbs when seeking medicinal plants.
However, no information is given about the impacts of the other sectors on the environment,
although there would certainly be some impacts to report. The degree of emphasis might depend on
the professional interest of the people involved in the country case studies, but it is also important
to ask if the AIS conceptual and methodological framework is adequate for looking into the
relationship between innovations and the environment. Innovation is not a technology but a value
that can be measured by environmental impacts (Drucker 1985).
The study gives attention to the private sector and associated market issues and shows how market
forces – not only the demand and supply relations but also marketing infrastructure and other
facilities – can make or break innovation performances. All case studies gave attention to how
market relations developed at local and international level, and the role played by governments to
improve the market. Market issues obviously receive adequate attention in the AIS conceptual and
methodological framework, and in the terms of reference for the country case studies.
The concepts of empowerment and sustainability are closely related, as one may benefit the other,
but can also have negative impacts on each other, if the relationship goes wrong. We refer here to
empowerment relevant to grassroots innovation systems in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the
developing world, i.e. the opportunity, capacity and ability of the end-users to access, develop and
use information and knowledge, to make decisions on R&D priorities, and to influence the
decisions and practices of others whose policies and practices affect the farmers’ lives and the
resilience of the system to respond to challenges exerted by human and non-human forces.
Sustainability in connection to innovation performances refers to the extent that the innovation is
informed by local knowledge and environmentally friendly, the cost and availability of
technologies or services used to create new values, and the marketability and suitability of the
innovation performance to the local sociocultural context. In connection to grassroots innovation
systems, where influence of market is relatively low, the issues of empowerment, sustainability and
environment are particularly important. The further from urban, industrialized settings and the
closer to the rural economy of the developing world, the stronger is the link of the people with the
environment, as the majority makes a living out of the natural resources. Moreover, the social
capital in the grassroots systems of developing countries greatly influences innovation and
development affairs.
In the study by Hall (2006), however, the issues of community empowerment and sustainability are
not central, although some comments were made as recommendations, such as inclusion of small-
scale producers in the pineapple industry of Ghana and the need for social equity in the shrimp
industry of Bangladesh. Hence we raise the question once again: how much does the conceptual
framework of AIS consider the issues of sustainability and empowerment as determinants of
innovation performances? The framework appears to be most attracted to the commercial sector,
where the issue of market is more important than social capital and related issues.
AKIS
Rivera et al (2005) assessed the status of AKIS in ten developing countries according to five
parameters: 1) policy environment; 2) institutional structure for supporting innovation; 3)
conditions for expressing demand for innovation; 4) partnership and networking; and 5) finance
systems for innovation. The results are indicated by marking crosses (0–3) to rank the magnitude of
each parameter in the respective countries. The greater the number of crosses, the stronger the
performance is.
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
11
Table 3: Status of AKIS in ten countries (from Rivera et al 2005)
AKIS parameters Cameroon Chile Cuba Egypt Lithuania Malaysia Morocco Pakistan Trinidad
&
Tobago
Uganda
1. Policy environment
Existence of national AKIS policy, plan formal
agreement
xxx xxx xxx x xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxx
AKIS targets public goods xxx xxx xxx xxx x x x
Attention to economic efficiency of agricultural sectors xx xxx x xx xx x x
2. Institutional structure for supporting innovation
Existence of AKIS units xx xxx xxx xxx xx xxx xx x xxx
Central and branch supervision xxx x x xxx xx x x x
Initiatives to build institutional resources xx xxx x xxx xx x xx xxx
Sound strategy for program decentralization /
subsidiarity
xx xxx xx xx x xx x x xxx
Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment xxx xx x x
Functional performance of AKIS entities xx xx x x xx xx
3 Conditions for expressing demand for innovation
Demand-driven orientation x xxx x xx xx xxx
Agricultural market support xx xx xxx x xx
Input (credit supplies) support xx x x x
Physical infrastructure support x xx xxx xxx xx xx xxx xx
Joint planning/effective linkages x x xx x x x x
Education for agricultural producers (APs) x X xx x x x x x xx
Gender inclusion xx x x x x
4. Partnership and networking
Structures for institutional cooperation xx xx xx x x xx x x xx
Existence of strong public-private partnership
(pluralism)
xx xxx x xxx x x xx
Program participation by APs x xxx xx xxx x xx xx
Effective use of traditional communication x x x x
Effective use of modern / computer internet technology xx xx xx xx xx x
5. Financing systems for innovation xx xxx xx x xxx x
Adequate funding for AKIS x xxx xx xx x xx
Repartition of costs x xx xxx xx x xx xx
Investment to develop stakeholder capacity
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07
12
This study pays particular attention to how public institutions – namely, of research,
extension and education – are aligned to develop public goods. In the AKIS case studies,
the role of the public institutions in the innovation process is seen as very high and the
private sector is not addressed as a source of innovation. In contrast, the role of public
research in supporting the private sector in the AIS studies is very low, maybe because
the emergent property of the system from the AIS perspective is commercial, rather than
public goods. The AKIS studies do give some attention to market issues, such as
agricultural market support, input support (including credits) and infrastructural support.
However, had the private sector been seen as a source of innovation, the linkage
framework for AKIS would not have been triangular (research, extension and education)
but rectangular, including also the private sector. Although the conceptual and
methodological frameworks for AKIS (PTD/PID) discussed earlier do recognize and
appreciate the potential of smallholder farmers to innovate, the case studies did not
address those issues at all. The fact that the study was conducted at country level should
not prevent the framework to comment on the role played by farmers in innovation. The
national picture must be able to reflect the dynamism of AKIS on the ground.
A point mentioned in the AKIS study and not in the AIS case study concerns financing
innovation, referring to public, public-private and cooperative funding for research.
Funds are made available through competitive grants to enhance innovation. Concurrent
to the limited attention in the AKIS study to local innovation and the capacity of the local
people to innovate, no resources were made available in any of the country cases for
financing innovation at the grassroots level, nor did the authors comment on this.
COMPLEMENTARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Major complementarities
Both perspectives are grounded in the systems thinking of the constructivist paradigm.
The AIS and AKIS frameworks are complementary, but each also has its own strengths
and limitations when used to study innovation in grassroots systems. Unlike the NARS
perspective, in both AKIS and AIS, innovation is a social phenomenon that takes place in
the complex interaction of diverse social actors rather than in the isolated and controlled
environment of researchers. Both recognize scientific knowledge coming from research
organizations and other sources as an important, but not the only, input for innovation to
happen. AKIS and AIS share the principle that there are multiple sources of innovation in
agricultural innovation, and both – in principle – recognize the innovative capacity of
farmers. But the specific case studies reviewed for this paper suggests that neither of
them give much attention to recognizing and developing farmers’ capacity to innovate.
The problem may lie more in the methodological limitations of the studies than in the
principles and assumptions of the theories. For example, the PID approach, which focuses
on the innovation capacity of local people, was essentially developed on the basis of the
AKIS perspective but also shares many values and principles with AIS, in the sense that
it seeks diversified types of innovation rather than being limited to technological ones.
Major differences
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07 13
The major difference between the two perspectives is in emphasis and in choices of areas
of interest rather than in the basic philosophies and principles. However, these differences
have implications for policy formulation, direction and consequent institutional changes.
Therefore, the differences cannot be ignored; rather, elucidating them will help to identify
possible areas of methodological synergies to explain innovation systems that have a mix
of the interest areas of AIS and AKIS.
As mentioned above, public institutions play a strong role in the innovation process from
the AKIS perspective but not from the AIS perspective. AKIS focuses on the linkages
between the main public institutions relevant for agricultural innovation, while AIS
addresses a wider set of social actors including the private sector and NGOs. In terms of
technological innovation, in the AIS case studies the private sector takes the lead, through
building own capacities and buying services from elsewhere. It depends very little on
public research institutions for knowledge. Commercially important agricultural
commodities with high value in national and global markets have obviously attracted the
attention of the authors. Therefore, the question is about making choices between
developing commercial goods (in which AIS is most interested) and targeting public
goods, which AKIS often does. The questions regarding policy choices may be:
a) Should countries have a private-sector-led development policy, where the macro-
economic and investment policies favor the creation and development of the private
sector, with a corresponding diminishing role of the public institutions?
b) Should they have a strong public sector fostering production of necessary goods and
services to the people, possibly narrowing the chance for the private sector to develop?
c) Should they have a combination of both?
The choices would depend on the socio-economic level, governance system and political
ideologies of the countries. In the AKIS study, Rivera et al (2005) commented that the
private sector can play an increasingly important role in rural knowledge systems, but
total privatization is not possible, even for commercial agriculture. The appropriate mix
of public and private roles can best be determined through piloting and learning from
experience. On the other hand, AIS thinkers (e.g. Drucker 1985) focus on the creation of
marketable value. New economic value should be the desired outcome of the innovation
system. Therefore, from the two case studies, the main lesson that could be drawn is:
choices for AKIS or AIS frameworks to study the national or sector-level innovation
systems depend on the policy choices of the governments for development.
Unlike AIS, AKIS gives much emphasis to facilitating innovation and not just describing
the process of how innovations happen and why. This is an obvious advantage of AKIS
over AIS, as the approach helps to design and enhance innovation processes. RAAKS,
PTD and PID are all instrumental to facilitate innovation. Some AIS authors have
recognized the limitations of the AIS perspective with regard to not being able to come
up with methodologies to facilitate innovation. Hall (2006), while drawing key insights
from the case studies conducted on AIS, mentioned that "innovation can be based on
different kinds of knowledge possessed by different actors: local, context-specific
knowledge (which farmers and other users of technology typically possess) and generic
knowledge (which scientists and other producers of technology possess). In an ideal
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07 14
innovation system, a two-way flow of information exists between these sources, but in
reality this flow is often constrained because information is embodied in different actors
who are not networked or coordinated. A central challenge in designing innovation
systems is to overcome this asymmetry – in other words, to discover how to bring those
possessing locally-specific knowledge (farmers and entrepreneurs) closer to those
possessing generic knowledge (researchers or actors with access to large-scale product
development, market placement or financing technologies).”
Because AKIS emerged to overcome the limitations of the NARS perspective on
technology development, it is preoccupied with issues of how technologies are developed
in a different way than in NARS. This history has kept AKIS focused on technological
innovation, to which the major issues addressed by AKIS, such as knowledge and
institutional change, are strongly related. In contrast, at least in theory, AIS encompasses
technological, market-related, financial, institutional and other forms of social innovation.
The PID approach, which grew out of the AKIS perspective, puts much the same
emphasis as AIS does on addressing more than only technological innovation, but much
methodological and empirical work is still necessary to put this theory into practice.
CONCLUSIONS
Because its history is rooted in the industrial innovation systems thinking, AIS is more
attracted to commercial sectors, where market aspects are more important than social
capital and related aspects. The AIS case studies were carefully selected. They are either
commercially well developed and employ numerous people, sometimes with particular
emphasis on smallholder commercial agriculture, or a quickly growing sector that is
seizing market opportunities at local and national level. The selection criteria for the
sectors confirm that the target group that AIS addresses is not necessarily "farmers" but
all people who are involved in farming, processing, packing, trading/entrepreneurship,
financial activities, brokering etc. In contrast, farmers are right in the centre of the AKIS
perspective, and the institutions that AKIS is dealing with, such as the public research,
extension and education organizations in developing countries, are traditionally
concerned with the issues of farmers. The case study on AIS shows that public research
organizations gave little or no support to most of the sectors considered in the study. The
emphasis of AKIS is not on commercial organizations but on small-scale farmers, who
have greater connection with the natural resources such as soil, water, forest, animals and
biodiversity in general. In most cases, the farmers in developing countries are managing
common resources such as land, water, forest etc. Issues of sustainability and community
empowerment are very important where common resource management, poverty and
environmental aspects are strongly connected. This leads us to conclude that the AKIS
perspective is more relevant for grassroots innovation systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
It must, however, be noted that – in food-insecure parts of sub-Saharan Africa – the issue
of market has often been considered as a second-generation problem. Therefore, the state
and non-state actors concerned with food production have paid little attention to market
issues. Meanwhile, it has become evident that the global changes in market regulations
and government policies on market liberalization and decentralization of power will
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07 15
require changes in the conception and practices of innovation processes. Therefore, the
addition of AIS on AKIS – especially its emphasis to market forces and more diversified
actors and target groups (for study purposes) – is very important. This suggests that the
greater emphasis of AKIS on farmers, NRM and related sustainability and community-
empowerment issues should be supplemented with important concepts in AIS about the
multiple sources of innovation and the different types of innovations (technical,
institutional, social etc). PID could, in principle, accommodate the basic concepts of both
AKIS and AIS, but the approach would need further improvement to accommodate the
new additions of AIS (private sector, NGOs, market and institutional analysis).
Both the AIS and AKIS perspectives still need to answer the question: should agricultural
innovation performances be measured just by their technical and institutional capabilities
to yield economic benefits, or should they also be assessed from the standpoint of local
and global environmental concerns, which also entail elements of sustainability and
empowerment of the resource users? The environment in the grassroots innovation
systems of sub-Saharan Africa is under great danger, because of the desperate needs of
the intervening actors to achieve food security, sometimes at the expense of the
environment. Empirical studies that may show the relationship and interdependency of
the innovation elements, including the technical competencies, economic benefits and
environmental friendliness (both natural and social), may help to answer this question.
REFERENCES
Anandajayasekeram P, Dijkman J & Workneh A (eds) (2005). Innovation systems
approach and its implication to agricultural research and development. Unpubl. report.
Drucker Peter. F(1985) in Daniel Szmytkowski (2005). Innovation Definition
comparative assessment. Draft1, developed under GNU free documentation license.
Unpubl.report
Engel P (1997). The social organization of innovation. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical
Institute.
Hall A (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond strengthening of
agricultural research. Washington DC: World Bank.
Leeuwis C (2004). Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural
extension, 3rd edition, Blackwell.
Reijntjes C, Haverkort B & Waters-Bayer A (1992). Farming for the future: an
introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. London: Macmillan.
Rivera W, Omar K & Mwandemere H (2005). An analytical and comparative review of
country studies on Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural
Development (AKIS/RD). Rome: FAO.
Röling N (1992). "The emerging of knowledge systems thinking: a changing perception
of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration.” International
Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 5 (1):42-64.
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07 16
Röling N (1996). "Towards an interactive agricultural science." Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension Vol 2, 4 PP 35-48.
Spielman D (2005). Innovation system perspective on developing countries agriculture: a
critic’s review. ISNAR Discussion Paper 2. Washington DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Waters-Bayer A & Bayer W (2005). The social dimensions in agricultural research and
development: how civil society fosters partnership to promote local innovation by rural
communities. EFARD conference, Zurich.
Version submitted to publishers through CIAT 5.07.07 17
