Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
This paper offers a perspective on the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System. The first chapter gives an introduction to the subject and explains the role of SCAR and of the Strategic Working Group AKIS. The second chapter investigates the AKIS and their role in innovation, including the policy context of the European Innovation Partnership “Agricultural productivity and sustainability”. Chapter 3 discusses the relation in a globalised world between Agricultural Research (AR) and Agricultural Research for Development (ARD).
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
RIU is a research and development programme designed to put agricultural research into use for developmental purposes and to conduct research on how to do this. The programme is funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). It follows earlier investments by DFID in agricultural and natural resources research, supported through its renewable natural resources research strategy (RRNRRS). While this strategy delivered high-quality research, the uptake of this research and its impact on social and economic progress was modest.
On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Innovation System research, this paper presents an extensive literature review on this large field of innovation research. Building on an analytical basis of the commonalities “system” and “innovation”, the authors analyze the four main Innovation System approaches: National Innovation Systems (NIS), Regional Innovation Systems (RIS), Sectoral Innovation Systems (SIS) and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS). The analysis is structured systematically along ten comprehensive criteria.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS) are in transition in many countries from a linear, top-down approach towards more flexible and interactive arrangements. This transition to a system more responsive to changing demands seeks to improve the adoption of innovation in order to strengthen the competitiveness of the agri-food sector. This article focuses on the research and innovation components of the AKIS to analyse the main developments of recent years and their drivers.
In this paper the authors present the development of an analytical framework to study agricultural innovation systems. They divide the agricultural sector into four levels and expand the innovation system approach to study innovation processes.
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.
This paper investigates Innovation Systems Concepts and Principles starting with an historical perspective. Then it analyzes their application to Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) and makes a comparison between the traditional Research and Development Systems Approaches and the Innovation Systems Approach.
Although Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the worst nutrition indicators in the world, nutrition remains a low priority on the policy agendas of many African governments. This despite the fact that proven interventions are known and available and that investment in them is considered a cost-effective strategy for poverty reduction. This case study is one in a series seeking to understand (1) what keeps African governments from committing fully to reducing malnutrition, and (2) what is required for full commitment.