Innovations are fast changing the agricultural landscape driven by the increasing need to shift towards sustainable practices without sacrificing the productivity and profitability of farming. Innovations in technology, institutions, processes, and products have contributed to the growth of agriculture, globally and in developing countries including India and Africa, as observed in the cases of green revolution in cereals; and gene revolution in cotton.
There are divergent views on what capacity development might mean in relation to agricultural biotechnology. The core of this debate is whether this should involve the development of human capital and research infrastructure, or whether it should encompass a wider range of activities which also include developing the capacity to use knowledge productively. This paper uses the innovation systems concept to shed light on this discussion, arguing that it is innovation capacity rather than science and technology capacity that has to be developed.
Technological innovations have driven economic development and improvement in living conditions throughout history. However, the majority of smallholder farmers in sub‐Saharan Africa have seldom adopted or used science‐based technological innovations. Consequently, several scholars have been persistently questioning the effectiveness of intervention models in smallholder agriculture.
This paper presents a case study of the Honey Bee Network’s decentralized model for collecting, verifying and disseminating grassroots innovations and provides a roadmap for its replication in Africa. The Honey Bee Network brings together governmental and non‐governmental institutions, members of academia, scholars and a large number of volunteers.
We present a model for research and development (R&D) investment in food innovations based on new plant engineering techniques (NPETs) and traditional hybridization methods. The framework combines uncertain and costly food innovation with consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for the new food. The framework is applied with elicited WTP of French and US consumers for new improved apples. NPETs may be socially beneficial under full information and when the probability of success under NPETs is relatively high. Otherwise, the traditional hybridization is socially optimal.
This paper draws lessons from selected country experiences of adaptation and innovation in pursuit of food security goals.
This study examines the role of public–private partnerships in international agricultural research. It is intended to provide policymakers, researchers, and business decisionmakers with an understanding of how such partnerships operate, how they promote the exchange of knowledge and technology, and how they contribute to poverty reduction.
This article adds to the literature about the impact of social networks on the adoption of modern seed technologies among smallholder farmers in developing countries. The analysis centers on the adoption of hybrid wheat and hybrid pearl millet in India. In the local context, both crops are cultivated mainly on a subsistence basis, and they provide examples of hybrid technologies at very different diffusion stages: while hybrid wheat was commercialized in India only in 2001, hybrid pearl millet was launched in 1965.
This article addresses the impact of Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) on food security among smallholder farmers in three countries of southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi). Southern Africa has suffered continued hunger despite a myriad of technological interventions that have been introduced in agriculture to address issues of food security, as well as poverty alleviation.
Agricultural research continues to be a good investment. The studies show that investments in international and national agricultural research account for almost all of the total factor productivity (TFP) growth in SSA and large shares of agricultural growth globally. The existing agricultural research institutions have, on average, delivered rates of return to public investment above 30-40%, which is much higher than the 5-10% available to other public investments or the 2-5% cost of borrowing public funds.